Text

Applicant Exhibit A-188,consisting of Admitting Exhibit.Util Re General Ofc Records Audit,Lk Comstock Engineering Co,Inc 830110 Memo Re Audit Responses & 821101 General Insp Rept Re Torque Wrench Test Record Encl
	ML20214F199
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	04/22/1987
From:	Mark Miller; ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:	Callihan A, Cole R, Grossman H; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
	OL-A-188, NUDOCS 8705220445
	Download: ML20214F199 (88)
	v • d • e

__. ;.._._._.._._: _.a y

l

[- J 9% h457

_qg ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE

.,,w p.

COUNSELORS AT LAW g'

THR.E FIR.T NATIONAL PLAZA

'87 APR 22 P 6 :32

..y.Au

.=ET c cAeo.u o a

= = m-r

.o T u,. coo...,,.

mm -==

c,.cAoo.u o..

(({g 312 SS -5500 WLIJA8d G. MALE.1 5,.23 gy 1150 CONNECTICUT.WENUE. N W.

~"

Wa NTo.u..,=

oon E

m To CALL WRITEA DIRECT December 12, 1986 Herbert Grossman, Esq.

Chairman Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Administrative Law Judge 102 Oak Lane Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Re:

In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Numbers 50-456 and 50-457

Dear Administrative Judges:

I have communicated with Ms. Chan on behalf of

?

the NRC Staf f and Mr. Guild on behalf of the Intervenors regarding the admission of Applicant's Exhibit 188.

Both of them, on behalf of their respective clients, inform me that they have no objection to its admission.

In ac-cordance with the discussion at our last telephone con-ference call, I understand that the exhibit will be received.

I am sending a copy of the exhibit to Ace Federal Reporter for inclusion in the evidentiary record of this proceeding.

Si cerel,

i u

MIM:es Michael I. Miller cc Ms. elaine Chan Mr. Robert Guild Ace Federal Reporter - with Applicant's Exhibit 188.

8705220445 870422

~

PDR ADOCK 05000456 '

4 O

PDR j

3, g

./8 Commonwealth Edison Syron Nuclear Station i

l rys o$irooi. T o*io " " ~

RECEIVED a

2x t.

me JAN 061983

'87 APR 22 P6 :33 L { COMSIOCK ENS. 00 00ChE i m :

! ! T.

i December 30, 198i ""

2 Letter No. BY 8539 i

TO:

L. K. Comstock Engineering Inc.

Braidwood Office

SUBJECT:

CECO. General Office Records Audit - Braidwood The Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance Department has reviewed your response dated November 12, 1982 to the subject audit and find the following item unacceptable for the reasons stated:

FINDING #1:

The response for Finding #1 of' the subject audit is unacceptable because it does not state that the actual calibration data is recorded on Form #77.

If form #77 is to be the formal record of calibration it should contain data such as test results,sset points, technicians name, standard used etc.

It is the auditor understanding that Form #77 does not contain this information.

The response also states that because calibration is an i cess event, the missing reports are not availalgle.

The acce y of the condition of the wrench must be analysed for the pe question.

The analysis shall be documented and the c ion report file should have a reference to it.

The ana can be based on calibrations before and after the period tion.

NUCLDS REGL1.ATORY COMW13310ll Dociet u @Md SIN 0 cal fin Ms.

/

Gmf4w cw ie m

,w,,

we etmimte Applicant flCliVID

/

laterrenar r!JEC[3 Cast *g Offs teatrater e4TE

"{ jj LK.c.'

f MM JAN 6-1983

v. nous

= -

t Page 2 Letter No. BY 8539 Observation //2:

The response does not address the fact that inspector R. Martin, C.

Tyler, and M. Kast had performed QC inspections after their certification had expired.

Please respond to this letter by 1/17/83.

If there are any questions concerning the above comments, please contact A.J.

Rosenbach on extension 563 at Byron.

$}

wyv s v x

A./J. Rosenbach QA Inspector Byron Station AJR:tj:0357L cc:

G.F. Marcus D. Brown - Braidwood QA g$s" 9

l t

\\

ge h-

~

L. K. Comstock Engineering Company, Inc.

Memorandum l

Tc:

Doug Brown, CECO QA office. Braidwood From.

T. F. Corcoran SuW. Audit Response Date: Januarv 10. 1983 Control No: 83-01-10-02 1A.

FINDING NO. 1 Revised LKCE QC Response: (Ref. LKCE QC No. 82-11-02-01)

The following is LKCE QC's response to the Ceco General Office Records audit letter No. BY8539, December 30, 1982.

Item #1:

As per attached calibration procedure 4.9.1, section 3.3, paragraph 3.3.3, 3.3.4 and 3.3.5.

The Control Card, Form #77, will be used by the QC Inspector to initiate the necessary calibration.

As per attached calibration procedure 4.9.4, Section 3.0, paragraph 3.2.2.3, torque wrench reading and analyser reading at each increment shall be recorded on Form #23 Torque Wrench Calibration Record.

As per attached calibration procedure ~4.9.1, Section 6.5, Form #23 must also be completed when calibrating items on site.

Information antered on Form #23 requires both, actual reading on device be tested and rea, ding f2om the standard device.

f The Form #77, Control Card is used for control of calibrated tools and equipment, Form #23 is the document for actual teat results for that tool or equipment.

Item 13:

As per calibration procedure 4.9.1 all items listed on this CECO audit were carefully and completely re-analysed.

All records were originally reviewed and submitted previously that determined past history and performance.

G.I.R. re ts were written to document history and status,f tor Afer re g many calibration records for several types o e

s which have a long history of "in-calibration" us NOTE:

Even though PTL, the testing lost several reports on this equipment results confirmed that the equipment in,

' e s in calibration.

. = -.

ww ru. 4 1-10-83 No adjustments or repairs were ever made on the equipment identified, therefore, based on past history and objective evidence of 1

acceptable quality history performance it is

,j considered to be acceptable by LKCE QC to use this equipment.

No further action would be needed.

Please see attached G.I.R reports.

l 1

Prepared by:

Concurred ff fh H W / / 10l5) hn Seeders DATE I. F. Corcoran DAIE C Inspector QC Manager JS/TFC/tjm CECO Gen. Off. RAcords cc:

Audit LKCE QC CTRL NO. 82-11-02-01 file e

9 4

+

l

/

.~

t A

l s

n. wasa i UGK O CUMPAN Y, ING.

p j

i x

s the purpose of dec==4ning the validity of previous inspections or test results of itms j<

installed with the lost / stolen tool since the last date of calibration.

3.3 Insoection 3.3.1 It will be L. K. Constock's Q. C. Department's respon-sibility to verify that all items specified to be recalibrated within a certain time frame has been

~

accomplished and dociamented.

i 3.3.2 Inventary Control log, Form #76, shall be used to l

maintain identificationi of measuring and test equip-i 1

ment and provide for as a minima:

3.3.2.1 Assigned control immber.

3.3.2.2 Item description including model.

3.3.2.3 Manufacturer.

i i

3.3.2.4 Serial Wisaber (if provided, otherwise enter N/A) l 3.3.2.5 Frequency of calibration.

l.

3.3.3 The calibration " Control Card" (Form #77) files will con-tain a card for each itan of measuring and test equignent l

)

identified in the Inventory Control Lot.

The " Control 1

File" will have a " Bold" section which will contain those cards r'equiring calibrations that have not been verified i

and/or card it'ama which have been rancved foma service 1

due to loss /thef t, damage, etc.

I I

3.3.4 The " Control Card" (Form #77) files will also include 1

l

,section denoted by months for those cards with valla calibrations, cards shall be filed under the corresponding i

month in which recalibration is due.

3.3.5 The " Control Card" (Form #77) will be used by the Q. C.

l Inspector to initiate the necessary calibration.

i 3.3. 6 The q. C. Inspectar or Q. C. Manager designated per 1!

will witness enlibration of the equipment, updat t

.')

" Control Card" (Forn #77) and affix a calibr c'1 sear j

that indicated "By" (name), "Date" (data

) and i

"Due" (date of next calibration).

3.3.7 Equipment found to have an ration date and/

or found to be outside the larances will require the initiation of action Correction l

Report (Form f30), the Insp ton Correction import will identify the itens which have not been calibrated, denote the date of calibration expiration,' and direct the Froject j'

i Manager to remove the equipment from service and to return the equipment immediately to the warehouse for storage paapanso amenovso navisso Tina omic. omTa nav.oart pasc Mw a rr un Pnocsounf 05/02/79 10/11/82 3 of

....,m..,-

1J 4

BRAIDWOOD 4.9.4 GA SECT _

, 't K. COM5TOCK & COMPANY i

3.0 PROCIDURE d

3.2.2.3 Torque wrench reading and analyser reading at eacn increment s na.... De recorded on Form

23 " Torque Wrench Ca;.bracion Record" a:2d acceocance or rej ection noted, based on c ae colerances Listed in LKC Frocedure 4.9.1.

3.3 If any adjustments to the wrench is required, the adjust

ments shall be made by the LKC warehouse foreman or by his designes and rechecking of the entire range performed i

per Seccion 3.2.

3.4 The complaced calibracion record shall be si*gned and daced by the LKC QC Ins 7ector and filed in the QC calibracion records file per ",KC Procedure 4.9.1.

i-4.0 TOOLS / EQUIPMENT 4.1 Torque Calibration Analyser 4.2 As required.

5.0 TORMS r

5.1 Form #23 - Torque Wrench Calibracion Record 6.0 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS-l 6.1 Designated working ranges for wrenches'may be established for specific cast methods, in such instances, calibration shall be performed in so specified ranges and results computed accordingly.

s I

+

+e

}

h d

l l

I estaasta

** e o w g 2 4 Evista 76T61 omic.satt say cars eac g l!

.us an maciouns 3-33-st

or 2

_ _. _ _ _. _ _.. _.. _. _, _ _ _. _ _. ~. _. _.. _ _ _. - _ _ _ _ _.

l ~

L. K. COMSTOCK O COMPANY, INC.

BRAIDWOOD 4.9.1 QA st

.s-4

( ****) 6.5 Form #23 aust be completed when -=11bratias items on site.

Information entered on form #23 su1 include both, actual reading os device being tested and reading from the standard i

eevice.

Record superages observed from ammeter when calibrating wald s.

{

b.

Record temperature check points observed from th.-.ter when calibrating ovens.

c.

Escord even temperature readings selected increments (which correlates to O'F) when salibrating evens, from I

temperature recorder graphs.

(**) 6. 6 Verify "secoedary" standards which are calibrated to "pr'imary"

-~

standards have their recorded actual values in calibratica j

test reports and serial number of primary standard device i

with a statemear " Traceable to the National Bureau of Stand-

)

ards".

)-

NOTE: Calibrating devices (primary / secondary) used to verify l

(itam to be onlibrated) device / equipment to be a =d.4==

l*

of 4:1 to 10:1 greater verified accuracy.

4 Esample Micrometers t.001 accuracies to be calibrated to gage

{

j blocks, +4 MIES, -21c15.

k i

I 4

i

'AEPAASO AsemovgD

E vl&EO TI TL.E o AIG. oATE AEv.DATE pact perw snnne i

=

.-=L_

~~~~~~"-

. L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY. INC.

@ sa i

'a 4*8'l I

CALISRATION CONTROL CARD

- (

CONTRO L NUMBER SERI AL NUMBER DESCRilrTION CALL 8 RATION Call 8 RATION QC SIGNATURE /

DATE CALIBRATEON REMARKS DUE DATE PROCEDURE DATE CERTIFIED i

l l

2 I

i i

I l

)

y-i g

2: Specific Instructions On Back Form n Rev 8/8 3

j e

\\

j t

l

)

l INSTRUCTIONS:

f 1.

PRIOR TO ITEM Call 8 RAT 10N DUE DATE, THIS CARD IS TO BE PLACED IN HOLD"-

l FILE PENDING CALIBRATION CERT.IFICATION..

)

t 11.

THE Q. C. INSPECTCR WILL EFFECT CALIBRATION OF T NT, UPDATE THIS 1

FORM TO SHOW THE. NEW. CALIBRATION ANU. D 4

E RETURN THE j

CONTROL CARD TO THE PILE Qv l

Form 77 j

4874480 Apog vac stytSED Tith.E GAIS.DATE REV.DATE p ac.

1 BRAIDWOO3 4.9.10 4.9.4 L K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC.

TORQUE WRENCH Call 8 RATION RECORD 4

TORQUE WRENCH NO.

RANGE ACCEPTA8LE TOLERANCE +/-4%/1 lb whichever greater REFERENCE LKC 4.9.1 ai d.9.4 FREQUENCY OF CALIBRATION weekly STD NO.

IJtC 2221 S/N 381053 DATE READING ShANGARD INSPECTOR DATE READING STANDARD INSPECTO R l

1 I

lACC l

lACC j

l l REJ l

l REJ i

i l

AL A

2%>-

l lACC a.

T l

l ACC I

l REJ l

l REJ Form No. 23 Rev. 3/24/81 l

{

PR EPAM ED APPMQvt3 REVISEQ TITLE OMIC.DATE REV.OATE FORM NSM l

RA8 RR RA8 PROCEDURE 11 14 80 32481 23

~

V

~

s?Ascwoc3 4.s.t o 4J.4 1 K. CQMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC.

VARIABLE INSTRUMENT CAI.IERATION.

RECORD TOOL /ZGUIP. NO.

RANGE Ac EPTAsLE TOLEMANCE REFERENCE DATE OF CAI.IBRATION' sTD NO.

/-

(Calibrasion Due DataJ DATE READING STANDARO INSPECTOR DATI READING STANDARD IN M CTOR i

j j

d I

IACC I

I AC REJ l-I REJ l

l f

~

b hW A %

AF i

i Ac=

i

, ACC n REJ db#

t iRu 1

PREPAAGO APPROV ED REV8850 TTTLA QRIG.QATE nav.oArt somu Non RA8 R1 TTC PROCEDURE 11/14/80 10/11/82 23 i

_,4,--

3n----.

y

,,,v._-

,-___.___.-,---,.,--.m-

^

L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC.

sR AIMO,. 4J.8 GENERAL INSPECTION REPORT

_ ac #And but teceA 7Ar777exc t,#c Epc Dx M

, _6VibMAJ 49 /m.

A+-

'~

.--. Lpc #ggf 76xyes Wweli aw rs As w/4&

%de decdD4ddt

rs/geven p

Ak/c. @Dha-77c~h A&c ff/ Avad

-Thus4 Mr7~~Accadr fA@

~

/0/s/Po Y"lh, N/u/8, SAP //p #/'k~ "/ )!kJNA M

a/a% 9 9 % # Ac W/ p 9 4 b

'Q d/"/H, 4/'Wb ////q, ////n, g4

'l'&, 'b/n, a/r/r9 xwd 9 r)c 4

ww

% kc h. n the S W,

g a djuct=

sudd 71f %

s kwri ase.r fp 5xdw sc?7sd s%dIWE MA p

, psf

,44/-p y

~

PasP AR ED APPmoven navisto TTTLA omiG. oATI mav.cATE Pomu New

L K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC.

BRAIDWOOD 4.8.6 GENERAL INSPECTION REPORT Y $ /Y N' W E O.lf fst/C /

A//oAlfRN.

Sukiect:

d H C-6f

))FW ts:

n.,.s m Afb'Abr>bx/ 4d2/m.

/t//P 4h M

5dd

/s AG td/M//l/ Ylf4-

/fCC/E/D%bd

&MAnemb NWmess

-7-e/ +r A<. A ceA xs

$ R /,

Erw 76j4'

^ d'Eudr Yl4fVP)//22lJP f,/Jf///jVc'

/

T/ES/

n s/t)/ as wezm nae mn m&d od77m gasrn,,w;rr a x WE/)Cl'Ix^C Nd SWb i4<5NC k /r/f d, 6

d c r/ w s u d A x parM

((+

Date l

"E#^"ED l Armovto l Revtsac l

nm g g,g g,3 g

,,y,,3 g

1 -. -.

^=-

.=r-j L K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC.

BRAIDwCCD 4J.6 GENERAL INSPECTION REPORT b

d d

/8 78

[ddg f,

Suareet:

. D c o.r. DxM

\\

C#Gdh-77de fd2Q.

x(4s-ne. m :

b d

[

h

/

Remarks Offy.EA#R$ f7 54Z

.4k/d AuA/d ra As w%b 7%e om.h&t

/

7~Uecs"c1-

/9e.dcic.

Acardaxc f fy

& lbuf A 7 N~ 5 f f ? z. c e x : d 5f/7l7;

/

& d 7/3/F/

n x s es d r &

i ; e e AiB Vs c

4 p.r 7 w 7E iuwx.e orx & d AD<

d ss

~

Jgc #ao Y.s-or&d.2ctm4. 7$wc Mxx EO NAv'VE,x - NC77EW Y R

j

~~ns r

" "^a =

ro:=

j o..

om a-mu

... m

m...,z

4

.s s,

t K. COMSTOCK at COMPANY, INC.

BRAlowo00 4.s.6 GENERAL INSPECTION REPORT C: M'G Q 4 Y[d.0 f,

b $ # ?fl~

^

m

/://c a=de-f4 9 /

n /d m:

n.r. w.

{

f

$/./('A *.C A'/ [.T/ (- bd((

.Gx.. Cwl/Le+77sn'

'? - / 4 - f d'.

u r /1 /c;<

[

/ A c~ 5 G6 -/ 'G/GE B'.'cc/t 4i44..id

,b

~~i' tca. AS6 e

-6 E A f f.:.*~',

/QOyp

~~~

.~

??f 5k.,m e m,c:

S u,/ c f r

A E = s '

s

/

[

//a I

./

r 3 /

e' t.

4" N 8(({

/d-

/

EVw 7%y grsi//kus Mr?~~At'0US '

A'

/t/cE

.otA-oaf wr

/ % de 4%

Herdf W"C ;

/fcGur//>~ew7?

4MxA NS kg:g, s(,/d h 24 hi ddd. -

9 9-q-/7

'l Date G

e N F*W 13 APPROVED REvtsaD TTTLE ORIG.DATI REV.DATE PCAM NgA JH RA8 PROCEDURE 42980 104

.u.

- =

~

a BRAIDWCCO 4J.6 L K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC.

GENERAL INSPECTION REPORT uma. Y 0

$l0 ffb/ h#Y'/C $d4 NC6dC Ltc oc 2e>.

..,.m.fW/4%?7st/ df /m; M/'#

9 e

4s

.frsc.

Uc c. Os6 %;n/ Abcadnt Yf / wcxx freovxd new 7d*

9 45 #67't d so &U4m+77l1/ 4gWi AM$

6A/

C / r l s ' b e 7. $ p ' dex.nxe/_, 6p h

Cg6hm7701/ Bl&vc & =/

/

evaa n cw m

c/g-pt d

/o 2 z -F L nn f

.c )%4-H 7%

~"~ " A L ef L A.

--z-sn o...

--r e

r

P

.d._.._-_._

..._.._,m L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC.

GRAIDwoco 4.s.s GENERAL INSPECTION REPORT

,. n / # C & s T 6 S w s m m # 2 # f k & g : ;

/&

Oc, 'uMPr

,,.C</bhzrs/ 49 /

M/#

ta %.n-

[ W,,f p f /

fqstsd#6W ddgf.

m,

$24bWMd f-/V-f/ ##d N4wd 71 k aMJ/ 7ste mz/"r&M

~

6 Mc/{tu s7 a c o 7 f uor m o s z a c~c!,

'77/eex Ma-Ae fadhw 4'cy7sO MScl As 77htir4, pw$!O f(

oaze ne y-a..

l PasPanso Appmovso navissa TrTLs on:G. mars nav.3 ATE pomu ser l

JH RA8 PRnt**Mt t#8 190 ma

a=

L.

~ ----- -

.-n. ;..C L K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY, INC, BRAIDWooD 4.8.6 GENERAL INSPECTION REPORT Sutvert:

m. YD D/4b' Ref. Seen/ Proc.

Don /Dws.:

/

[

f/

bh he N

/

Rd*

s

/scond ruxc4, ucc @ny p/

dd/N7AA-wgs fiTw &

Msy

^ 73 446/E

/

5

/4Stedfg,

C & h p,/7 w

&F 6L CchAker 4 peg t

4 yp, j,

a

/

b h/

0$

$3/

/

$ *'W h- #dGoh CAS iSA

- z s 9 e a c 73rr~ desd&

6%E.

dsd,AF4 M., d ? M J7-P P3

~

ff J&

$k$

l

$Y.

f b/W 5 Y 7 T d 's c a m a m

^ C+b%1'477/b' 4#d kE b PREPARED APPROVED REVISED Tm.E ORIG. DATE REV.DATE FORM NSR.

JH -

RAB PROCEDURE 4 29-80 104

3-

.m Findina #2:

Contrary to 10CFR50 Appendix B Criteria II and L. K. Comstock P:ocedures 4.12 and 4.1.3., inspections were performsd and documented by unqualified inspectors.

Discussion Per L. K. Coastocks Procedure 4.1.2, Paragraph 1.25, the Q.C.

supervisor shall be trained and knowledgeable in the assigned areas -

of responsibility and certified to Level II capability in those areas.

He shall review completed Q.C. checklists and other documentation in his area of responsibility prior to filing.

Q.C.

Supervisor, M. Kast, had reviewed and signed Q.C. Cable Pulling Checklist.

M. Kast is not qualified in cable pulling.

The following list of cable inspections were reviewed by M. Kast:

1AP050 (C1E))

1DC033 (PlE)

)

ClE 1AP051 (

1Dc193 (P1E) 1AP147 (PIE) 1DC194 (PlE)

Q.C. inspection checklists are being reviewed by Q.C. personnel other than the Q.C. supervisor.

Some inspections are being reviewed by personnel not qualified for the area being reviewed.

The Zo11owing lists such examples:

1.

Q.C. Inspector, S. Lobue reviewed and signed cable tray inspections.

S. Lobus is not certified as a cable tray inspector.

The (3) three reports that he signed are 11803J (C2E), 11803K (C2E), and 11819J (C2E).

2.

Q.C. Inspector, J. Peters reviewed and signed stud welding inspection of J. Crate EL-426 (dated 8/17/81).

J. Peters is not qualified for welding inspections.

3.

Q.C. Supervisor, T. Loahardo and S. Devald reviewed and srigned Electrical Equipment Inspections.

Neither person was qualified for equipment installation.

l Q.C. training, Greg Delle performed and signed (6) six co uit inspections by himself.

These reports were reviewed and a Greg Delle is not qualified for anything.

The following he conduit that Delle inspected:

CIA 0224' CIA 0248 CIA 0225 CIA 02581 y'

CIA 0246 CIA 0259

4 i

Q.C. Inspector, K. Bushue perfo nd signed in-process CEA inspections.

K. Bushue is not quali d for'CEA inspections.

G 9

(Oll4A) i

.,--a-

'N-

- ' - = -

e w

sq

--y

_{.

O O

Finding #2:

Items listed in Finding #2 have been reinspected per attached hatterdated 11/12/82 with the exception of inspections performed by

<,. Lombardo.

T. Lombardo's qualification for electrical equipment

nstallation inspection are attached to letter dated 11/12/82.

(See

.etter dated 11/12/82 and attachment).

~

Certification for I. Dewald (incorrectly identified as S. Dewald in the audit report) and letter of signature authority allowing Devald to review Q.C. documents have been forwarded by L. K.

x' Comstock.

(See attached letter dated 2/17/83 and Attachment A, Bl.

32, and C).

e 0

'4 e

e O

ee6 e

(0114A)

.L. ~

~

Commonwealth Edison Byron NuclearStation I

4450 North German Church Road Byron, Illinois 61010 January 31, 1983 Letter No. BY 8687 p

TO:

L K Comstock Engineering Inc.

/

Braidwood Office

SUBJECT:

CECO General Office Records Audit - Braidwood N.

reviewed your response dated 1/10/y Assurance Department has The Commonwealth-fdison--Qualit 83 and find it acceptable.

This acceptance is conditional based upon satisfactory demonstration of corrective action and preventative measures concerning the deficient items.

A follow-up surveillance will be performed by site QA personnel to close all open deficiencies.

/$fi1 as A. J.'gosdnbach QA Inspector Byron Station AJR:jc:0433L cc: G.F. Marcus

~

D. Brown - Braidwood QA

$$@$N FEB 41983 i

LK. COMSTOCK ENG. 00., INC.

e

.h.

5

()

l'.

'O

($ '

m.,

-g q h

ih rd R

P.

O y

y X.

X l-p O %'

N q

n (0

h O P r.

6'-

fil h-k h

H f

7 t$

e o

O c

LA N

i i

N i

SA,stAtt}AeAlWB

=

~-

._a I

/

I sus > IMGtEAsG

-c i

Co ~

i M Af71sJ sc saf E M E k ( h t

Coe ses nu e

I

_&NN Ak,atM -

nan %* ~ h -

/4y ".

i

N s

--- - 5

^

g g m.~..

NAend N

+--- O l tw.S wlma Inf g,, y Mktrist rnq tu !

e----NvNTE4 l

l g

.. _...e f o L A A8 l"h*Hh W %mt@

p4, p,g W llo pu a.

l 1

Air, test 7

I Lef t. K l l

t I

N*"EY L _ _._

.i d

raeLu Ps d"# IA#"

Servats l

4.---

sesavu.

g g*r

.m,,, u m m s

l W &oum au l

LCC E.l

.e--

-- t.a c.

re g A s m usssd

'g--- -- rnes w w*

r u.es i

i p.-

5,3 di-W e 4---

- 4.s w TT R

.e t

l

.4- --- Pe a e rmw i

l I

'*---- a fT.

a enn t i

If L77'14hJ P4.-.

N f

CD l

i 4

r,~, m.re

.ar-

, ge * '

o o

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-456

)

50-457 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF CHARLES H. WEIL REGARDING BRIDGET LITTLE ROREM, ET AL. SUBCONTENTION 2.C Q1. Please state your name, position and business address.

A1. My name is Charles H. Weil.

I am employed by the Nuclear Regulatory.

Commission Region III as the Investigation and Compliance Specialist.

My business address is United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 79:- Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137.

Q2. Please describe your responsibilities as the Region III Investigation and Compliance Specialist.

A2. As Region III Investigation and Compliance Specialist, I am responsible for the receipt, assessment, and tracking of all allegations made against NRC licensees in Region III. I am also responsible for conducting special inspections which are related to accidents, incidents, or other unusual circumstances involving NRC licensed facilities.

Q3. Have you prepared a statement of your professional qualifications?

A3. Yes, a statement of my professional qualifications is attached to my testimony as Exhibit 1.

Q4. What is the purpose of your testimony?

O h

,y.*

2 A4. The purpose of my testimony is to describe my involvement with the Staff's actions taken in response to the Staff's receipt of allegations from John D.

Seeders, Worley O.

Puckett, and several LKC quality control inspectors who attended meetings with the NRC on March 29, 1985.

These allegations are the subject of Intervenors' inspector harassment contention.

N John D. Seeders Q5. Mr. Weil, Intervenors cite the case of John D. Seeders in support of their harassment contention.

Please describe your first involvement with Mr.

Seeders' allegations.

A5.

I believe I first became aware of Mr. Seeders allegations on or about August 23, 1984, when I received a memorandum from W.L. Forney, who at.

that time was in charge of the section overseeing the Braidwood Station in the Region III Division Reactor Projects.

Mr. Forney's August 23, 1984 memorands forwarded a letter dated August-17,1954, from Mr. Seeders to Mr. Irv DeWald of the L.K. Comstock Company (LKC) at the Braidwood plant.

Q6. Did you respond to Mr. Seeders' letter of August 17, 1984?

A6. Yes.

I acknowledged the receipt of Mr. Seeders' letter in an August 29, 1984 letter to him.

Q7.

Did you transmit a copy of Mr. Seeders' letter to any other branch of the NRC?

A7.

Yes.

By memorandum dated August 27, 1984, I sent a copy of Mr. Seeders' letter to the Region III Division of Reactor Projects.

I believe a copy was also given to the Office of Investigations (01).

Q8. nihat, if any, response did you received from OI?.-

A8. The Office of Investigation decided not to-investigate and requested Regier III to contact Mr. Seeders and ascertain his reasons fer feeling

4 Y

3 4

T harassed and to obtain more information about the record falsification allegation. OI also requested to be infonned of the results.

09. What, if anything, did you do after you received 01's response?

A9.

I notified the Director of Reactor Projects of Ol's position and requested that his division investigate Mr. Seeders' allegations.

The Division of

~

Reactor Projects assigned R.D. Schul,2, then the Braidwood Senior Resident Inspector (Construction) to conduct an, inspection into the matter.

In January 1985, I sent a copy of Mr. Schulz'; inspection report (Nos.

50-456/84-34; 50-457/84-32) to the Director of OI's Region III Field Office.

Q10. Mr. Weil, what involvement, if any, did you have in the Staff's investigation of Mr. Seeders' allegations?

A10. I was not involved in the Staff's investigation of Mr. Seeders' allegations.

Mr. Seeder's allegations were investigated Mr. Schulz, then the Senior Resident Inspector (Construction) for the Braidwood Nuclear Project.

Q11. Mr. Weil, what role, if any, did you have in the preparation of Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/84-34; 50-457/34-32?

All. While I r.ay have reviewed the report, I did not participate in the writing of that report.

Either I or my alter".1 ate, Mr. Stapleton, routinely review drafts of inspection reports which relate to allegations received by Region III.

)

Q12. Did you send Mr. Seeders a copy of Inspection Report Nos. 50 356/84-34; 50-457/84-32 by certified mail?

A12. No.

That inspection report was mailed to Mr. Seeders as an attachment to j

my January 21, 1985 letter to him.

That letter was sent by first class mail.

=

..:. =

w.:.

=.

= _.,

~

,3 Q13. Mr. Weil, the inspection report indicates that it was issued on December 31, 1984 Why was Mr. Seeders not mailed a copy-of the report until January 21, 1985?

A13. The first ten days of that period were consumed by the proprietary review allotted.to the license. During that time period, inspection reports were held by the division that authored the report until ten days had elapsed

~

from the date of issuance of the report to the licenssee, after which time the division would distribute the report throughout t'he office.

Consequently, the earliest I probably received a copy of Mr. Schulz's report was Friday, January 11 or Monday, January 14, 1985.

Also, since I was occupied full time with allegations at another site during that time many routine matters, such as mailing out copies of inspection reports,

,l backed up.

Q14. Did you correspond with Mr. Seeders after the issuance of Inspection Report 84/34-32?

c A14. Yes.

Ir. addition to my August 29, 1984 and January 21, 1985 letters to Mr. Seedern I wrote to Mr. Seeders on September 13, 1985, after I received a copy of a written statement he had provided to the U.S.

Department of ~ Labor (DOL) in connection with the DOL's investigation of Mr. Worley O. Puckett's employment discrimination allegations.

In that statement, Mr. Seeders again indicated that he had been asked to falsify documents by LKC management. My last correspondence with Mr.. Seeders was on March 6,1986, in which I. solicited from him a reply to my September 13, 1985 letter.

Q15. Did Mr. Seeders respond to your letters?

A15. No, I received no response from Mr. Seeders to any of the letters I sent him.

Worley O. Puckett e

..~

~

Q16. Mr. Weil. Intervenors also cite the case of Worley 0. Puckett in support of their contention.

Please describe your first involvement with Mr..

Puckett.

A16. I believe I first became aware of Mr. Puckett's allegations when I was infomed of them by C.C. Williams, who at that time was the Chief of the Plant Systems Section in the Region III Division of Reactor Safety.

However, it is possible that I may have received the infomation earlier by a telephone call from L.G. McGregor, who at the time was the Senior Resident Inspector (Operations) at the Braidwood Station.

I cannot recall at this time which contact came first.

Q17. When did you first speak with Mr. Puckett?

A17. I believe my first conversation with Mr. Puckett was on August 31, 1984, following Mr. Puckett's telephone call to Mr. Williams.

I believe I telephoned Mr. Puckett to arrange a meeting with him.

Q18. Did you memorialize your conversation with Mr. Puckett in writing?

4 A18. Yes.

My comunications with Mr. Puckett are reflected in my September 6, 1984 merorandum to Messrs. C.E. Norelius and R.L. Spessard, and in my September 6,1984 letter to Mr. Puckett.

Q19. Mr. Weil, your September 6, 1984 memorandum to Me'ssrs. horelius and Spessard purports to reflect the concerns of an alleger regarding LKC's welding program.

Please explain the circumstances surrounding the preparation of that memorandum.

A19. The memcrandum was prepared by me in order to consolidate the infomation Messrs. McGregor and Williams received from Mr. Puckett.

It also documented my follow-up conversation with Mr.

Puckett and the coordinations I made within the office.

The memoranium reflected my l

understanding of Mr. Puckett's concerns as of the date it was written.

~

020. Did you send Mr. Puckett a copy of your Septerb'er 6,1984 menorandurr?

~.

.s

A20. Yes.

That memorandum was sent to Mr. Puckett as an attachment to my September 6, 1984 letter to him.

P Q21. Why was Mr. Puckett requested to come to the Region III office for a, personal interview?

A21. Afte'r Messrs. McGregor and Williams spoke with Mr. Puckett on the telephone, the Staff ' decided that it would be helpful to meet personally with Mr. Puckett to obtain more detail regarding what appeared to be significant allegations. Mr. Puckett was asked to come to the Region III office because it was more cost-effective to have Mr. Puckett travel to our office than to have at least two NRC employees travel to his home.

Q22. Did Mr. Puckett come the Region III office to discuss his concerns?

A22. Yes.

Mr. Puckett was interviewed by me on September 11, 1984 in the Region III office.

Q23. Please identify the participants at that interview.

A23. In addition to myself and Mr. Puckett, Region III Reactor Inspector Kavin D. Ward and Raymond Wyzguski, a Compliance Officer,with the Chicago Area Office of the U.S. Department Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, attended the interview.

Q24. Why did Mr. Ward and Mr. Wyzguski attend the interview?

A24. Mr. Ward attended as a technical representative of the Region III staff and to assist me in understanding the technical issues raised by Mr.

Puckett.

Mr. Wyzguski was the investigator assigned to Mr. Puckett's case by the Department of Labor and was invited to attend in order to facilitate his investigation of Mr. Puckett's employment discrimination complaint.

It seemed sensible to arrange for Mr. Wyzguski and Mr. Puckett to meet while Mr. Puckett was in town.

Q25. Was your interview with Mr. Puckett transcribed?

.... =.

.=

=...

A25. Yes.

Q26. What, if any, ground rules did you establish with Mr. Puckett with respect your interview?

A26. My September 6, 1984 memorandum to Messers. Norelius and Spessard was used as a general outline of the matters to be discussed during the interview.

At the beginning of the interview, I explained to Mr. Puckett that the purpose of the interview was to enable the NRC to obtain as much detail as possible about his allegations and requested that he elaborate on his concerns.

027. How long did your interview with Mr. Puckett last?

A27. As best I can recall, my int.erview with Mr. Puckett lasted between two and.

three hours.

Q28. Let's turn to Item 1 of your September 6,1954 memorandum.

Wnat, if anything, during your interview did Mr. Puckett say his concern was with respect to this item?

A28. Mr. Puckett stated that welders employed by L'KC welded SA-446 material to A-36 material even though an LKC procedure was not available for that weld combination.

These welds were contrary to the AWS D1.1-1975 Code according to Mr. Puckett.

It was also my understanding that Mr. Puckett believed the AWS D1.1-1975 Code did not permit the welding of SA-446 steel to A-36 steel.

Q29. Did Mr. Puckett indicate why he believed welding SA-446 to A-36 materials violated the AWS DI.1 Code?

A29. Mr. Puckett indicated that SA-446 material was listed in the AWS D1.3 Code and not the AWS D1.1 Code.

4

4 Q30. Let's turn to Item 10(d) of your September 6,1984 memorandum.

What, if anything, during your interview did Mr. Puckett tell you was his concern with respect to this item?

A30. Mr. Puckett stated that in reviewing LKC welder qualification test records he found several instances where a welder who had failed a qualification test was later qualified on the basis of a single retest.

Q31. Did Mr. Puckett indicate whether he understood the AWS D1.1 Code provided two avenues by which a welder who had previously failed a qualification test could qualify?

A31. Mr. Puckett said that under the AWS D1.1 Code, a welder who fails a qualification test must pass two additional tests.

Mr. Puckett did not identify any other provisions of the AWS DI.1 Code by which a welder who.

had failed a qualification test could qualify.

I do not recall him speaking of two avenues for requalification.

Q32. Was Mr. Puckett asked whether he had any other concerns with respect to this subject?

A32. While Mr. Puckett may not have been requested specifically to elaborate in this area, he frequently volunteered information in response to other

~

subjects discussed during the interview.

In addition, as I stated earlier Mr. Puckett was informed at the start of the interview that the purpose of the interview was to provide the NRC with as much detail as possible regarding his concerns. Therefore, it was not unreasonable to expect that if Mr. Puckett had any additional concerns regarding this subject he would have shared them with the NRC.

Finally, I note that at the end of the interview I asked Mr. Puckett whether there was anything else he would like to add or discuss and he stated that there was not.

Q33. Referring back to your September 6,1984 memorandum.

What, if anything, during the interview did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Item 2(a)?

~

.s,

1 A33. Mr. Puckett stated that LKC Welding Procedure No. 4.1.14 was qualified in the SG, or horizontal, position which qualified a welder in all positions except the 2G, or overhead, position.

However, according to Mr. Puckett welders qualified in the SG position were making welds in the 2G position.

Q34. Referring back to your September 6,1984 memorandum.

What, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Item 2(b)?

A34. Mr. Puckett stated 'that an LKC ' weld procedure authorized the use of a magnetic particle test to inspect for cracks in stainless steel welds.

According to Mr. Puckett, a magnetic particle test was inappropriate for stainless steel.

e Q35. Referring back to your September 6,1984 memorandum.

What, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Item 2(c)?

^

A35. According to Mr. Puckett, LKC welders were using LKC Weld Procedure 4.1.14 to make bimetallic welds even though Weld Frocedure 4.1.14 was not qualified for bimetallic welding.

Q36. Did Mr. Puckett indicate where such bimetallic welds had been made?

A35. Mr. Puckett indicated that he had heard such welds had been made in the vicinity of the reactor.

Q37. Referring back to your September 6,1984 memorandum.

What, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Item 3?

A37. Mr. Puckett stated that because LKC Weld Procedure No. 4.1.14 was not qualified for bimetallic welding, the welders were not qualified to make such welds.

Consequently, all bimetallic welds made by LKC welders were of indeterminate quality.

Q38. Did Mr. Puckett identify any welders who had made bimetallic welds or otherwise provide any infonnation which could be used to identify such welders?

.y,

A38. No he did not.

However, I believe Mr. Puckett may have identified an LKC quality control inspector who could do so.

Q39 Referring back to your September 6,1984 memorandum.

What, if anything.

did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to. Item 4?

said that during his review of LKC weld procedures he had A39. Mr. Puckett found some procedures contained numeric fractions which were not converted to the correct decimal equivalents.

Q40. Did Mr.

Puckett identify any other inconsistencies in LKC's weld procedures?

A40. I do not believe Mr. Puckett identified any other inconsistencies in LKC's weld procedures but I

remember him stating that there were also, inconsistencies in LKC's welder qualification records.

Q41. P.eferring back to your September 6,1984 memorandum.

What, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Item 5(a)?

A41. Mr. Puckett was concerned that LKC did not have a procedure to control r -

adequately the issuance of weld filler material.

Q42. What, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to i

Item 5(b) listed on your September 6, 1984 memorandum?

A42. Mr. Puckett stated that weld rod heat numbers were not recorded accurately I

on the weld rod issue slips.

In this regard, Mr. Puckett stated that he had beer. unable to trace the heat numbers on three weld filler material slips back to the documents reflecting the receipt of those heats of material.

Q43. Referring back to your Septembar 6,1984 memorandum.

What, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Item 6?

9 I

S 11 s

=

A43. Mr. Puckett was concerned that LKC did not have adequate controls to maintain sufficient traceability of construction materials.

According to Mr.

Puckett, Criterion VIII of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B and 2

Specification L-2790 required traceability on materials up until the time of installation.

Mr. Puckett was concerned that this'was not being done by LKC at Braidwood.

Q44. Referring back to your September 6,1984 memorandum.

What, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Item 7?

9 A44. Mr. Puckett was concerned that a weld procedure qualification test intended to qualify a particular weld combination without preheat had been conducted without having a weld inspector present to witness the test.

Q45. Let's turn to the next item on your September 6,1984 mamorandum.

What,,

if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Item 8?

A45. Mr. Puckett said that his review of the qualification packages of several LKC welders identified numerous documentation inconsistencies in those welders' qualification packages.

Items 9, 10, and 11 listed on my September 6,1984 memorandum describe some of the specific instances which caused Mr. Puckett concern.

Q45. What,if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Item 9?

A46. Mr. Puckett was concerned that welder qualification cards issued to many of the welders employed by LKC indicated that they were cualified as welders pursuant to LKC Procedure 4.7.1 when in fact they had qualified under the procedure of LKC's predecessor, E.C. Ernst.

l Q47. Referring back to your September 6,1984 memorandum.

What, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respec,t to Items 10(a) and 10(b)?

A47. Mr. Puckett was concerned that some LKC welders were tested on one-half

(!") thick plate but were authorized to weld to 'ar unlir:ited thickness

12 range in the field.

In Mr. Puckett's view, this was contrary to the AWS 01.1 Code.

According to Mr. Puckett, in order for a welder to qualify to an unlimited thickness range, he must qualify on one-inch (1") thick plate.

Mr. Puckett indicated that for welders who qualified on one-half inch thick plate, the qaalification records were erroneous in that they failed to specify the correct thickness range.

Q45. What, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Item 10(c) listed on your September 6, 1984 memorandum?

A4S. Mr. Puckett was concerned that some LKC welders were exceeding the minimum s

thickness range for which they were qualified.

According to Mr. Puckett, these welders were lir.ited to a minimum material thickness of 0.167 inches but were welding materials 0.105 inches thick in the field.

Q49. Referrine back to your September 6,1984 memorandum.

What, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Items 10(e) and 11(a)?

A49. Mr. Puckett stated that the welder qualification test record for one LKC welder indicated that he had taken three weld tests' and received his test results from Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories (PTL) all in a single day.

050 Referring back to your September 6,1984 memorandum.

What, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Item 11(b)?

A50. Mr. Puckett was concerned that a welder's one-inch thick test coupon had been subjected to face and root bend tests.

In Mr. Puckett's view, it was impossible to perforr. face and root bend tests' with the test equipment available at the Braidwood Station.

Q51. What, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Item 11(c) listed on your September 6, 1984 memorandum?

(-

l A51. Mr. Puckett stated that he had heard that Mr. DeWald, the LKC Quality Control Manager, had inspected a thousand welds in a single day when he was an LKC weld inspector at the Braidwood Station.'

~

13 Q52. Referring back to your September 6,1984 memorandum.

What, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Item 12?

A52. Mr. Puckett stated that he had discovered inconsistencies in the LKC The inconsistencies described by Mr. Puckett consisted Master Hammer Log.

of: (1) multiple welders being issued the same stamp number and (2) multiple weld stamp numbers being given to the same welder.

x Q53. Referring back to your September 6,1984 memorandum.

What,,if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Item 13?

A53. Mr. Fuckett was concerned that because the weld inspector assigned to monitor the weld test booth and fabrication shop was* also required to perform field inspections, activities in the weld test booth were not being monitored adequately.

054. Finally Mr. Weil, what, if anything, did Mr. Puckett say was his concern with respect to Iter 14 listed on your Septerber 6, 1984 memorandum?

A54. Mr. Puckett recounted a meeting between LKC quality control' inspectors and Bob Marino, LKC's corporate quality assurance manager, in which Mr. Marino is reported to have told the quality control inspectors that if they were not willing to work for the salary being paid them, they could easily be replaced.

Q55. Did Mr. Puckett raise any other concerns during your interview?

A55. Yes. He also discussed his belief that he was fired because he raised the aforementioned safety concerns to Mr. Dewald, LKC's -Quality Control Manager.

Since I was aware of this allegation prior to the interview, I had arranged for a representative of the Department of Labor to attend the interview.

056. What other, if any, subjects did you discuss with Mr. Puckett?

G W

m_;

A56. In addition to the employment discrimination concern discussed above, we also discussed the financial arrangements for Mr. Puckett's travel to the Region III

office, the confidentiality of his

identity, and made arrangements for providing Mr. Puckett a copy of the interview transcript and the NRC inspection report addressing his concerns.

057. Mr. Weil, how did you satisfy yourself that you understood Mr. Puckett's concerns?

A57. Clarifying and follow-up questions were asked of Mr. Puckett by myself and Mr. Ward throughout the interview.

Further, on September 26, 1984, I mailed a copy of the transcript of the September 11, 1984 interview to

+

Mr. Puckett. Enclosed with the transcript was a letter from me in which I asked Mr. Puckett to call me collect with any corrections or coments he Kished to make to the transcript.

Mr. Puckett made no corrections to the.

t'ra nscript.

Also, on several occasions I spoke with Mr. Puckett subsequent to the interview.

Although those telephone calls generally related to the reimbursement cf Mr. Puckett's travel expenses, I note that Mr. Puckett did not indicate to me that the transcript which he had received did not reflect accurately his concerns.

058. What action did you take regarding Mr. Puckett's concerns after the interview?

A58. As previously mentioned, my September 6,1984 memorandum was addressed to the Reactor Projects and Reactor Safety Division Directors so that Mr.

Puckett's technical concerns could be reviewed, evaluated, and resolved by the NRC's technical staff.

I later sent them a copy of the interview transcript along with documents provided by Mr. Puckett during the September 11, 1984 interview and documents relating to Mr. Puckett's Department of Labor action.

I also advised the Director of the Office of Investigations' Region III Field Office of the matter.

k Q59. What, if any, involvement did you have in the Staff's investigation of Mr.

Puckett's concerns?

-+

~.

~

15 -

A59. I did not have any direct involvement in the Staff's resolution of Mr. Puckett's concerns other than answering any questions that may have been raised by the Staff in connection with its review of the interview transcript and related documents.

NRC Inspector Jerome F. Schapker was assigned to investigate Mr. Puckett's allegations.

060. What, if any, involvement did you have in the preparation of the Staff's report relating to Mr. Puckett's concerns?

A60. I did not have any direct involvement in the writing of that inspection report.

However, I reviewed the draft report since, as I noted earlier, either I or my alternate routinely review drafts of inspection reports i ^

relating to allegations received by Region III to ensure that each of the allegations is addressed.

Q61. Was Mr. Puckett furnished a copy of Mr. Schapker's inspection report?

A61 Yes.

Ey letter dated December 4, 1985, I mailed Mr. Puckett a copy of Inspection Report Nos. 50-456/85009; 50-457/85009.

Q62. Mr. Schapker's inspection report was issued on November 21, 1985. Why was Mr. Puckett not mailed a copy of that report until December 4, 1985?

A62. On November 21 and 22,1985, I was on annual leave.

November 23 and 24, 1985, was a weekend.

On November 25 and 26,1985 I was on official travel.

I spent November 27, 1985 briefing the regional management concerning my trip on November 25 and 26,1985.

The following two days, November 28 and 29, along with the weekend of November 30 and December 1, constituted the Thanksgiving Day weekend.

After that my first day back in f

the office was December 2, at which time I began to catch up cn routine office

work, including the mailing of the inspection reports to individuals who have furnished us with allegations.

March 29, 1985 Incident O

J

-.~.

[*.

i Q63. Mr. Weil, please, describe your first involvement with the events of March 29,1985 in which several LKC quality control inspectors raised a

[

number of concerns to the Braidwood Senior Resident Inspectors.

A63. As I recall, R.F. Warnick, a Branch Chief in the Region III Division of Reactor Projects, telephoned me on Friday, March 29, 1985, and asked me to come to his office to participate in a telephone call with the R.D. Schulz and. L.G.

McGregor, the Senior Resident Inspectors at the Braidwood Station.

During that conference call, the Senior Resident Inspectors recounted a meeting they held' earlier that morning with six quality control inspectors employed by LKC.

Q64. What was said during that telephone conference?

A64. As I recall, the Senior Resident Inspectors informed us that the LKC.

quality control inspectors had complained to them about harassment and intimidation from an LKC QC Supervisor and an overemphasis on quantity at the expense of ouality by LKC QC management.

The Senior Resident Inspectors also reported to us that the LKC quality control inspectors were threatening a walkout the following Monday.

Q65. Was a decision made to hold a telephone conference between the NRC Region III and the LKC quality control inspectors?

t A63. Yes.

That decision was made by Region III management. After.its initial review of the infonnation received by the Senior Resident Inspectors from the six LKC quality control inspectors, the regional management contemplated notifying Applicant of the subst'ance of the LKC quality control inspectors' allegations.

It is the policy of the NRC to advise applicants of potential allegations as soon as possible in order that appropriate review and subsequent action can be taken to protect the public health and safety.

This policy recognizes that an applicant has a strong interest in learning of and taking appropriate action to correct any problems which may affect the operation of its nuclear facility.

Additionally, it should be noted that the Sen-ior Resident Inspectors had reported that the LKC cuality control inspectors w'ere threatening a work

.~ -

stoppage for the following Monday.

It was believed that a walkout by the quality control inspectors could impede plant construction because

~

construction could not proceed without quality control inspectors.

Consequently, it seemed reasonable to notify Applicant of the potential for a work stoppage by the LKC quality control inspectors.

Before notifying Applicant of the. allegations, however, the regional management wanted to determine whether any of the six.LKC quality control inspectors desired confidentiality.

Therefore, I was asked to advise the '

six LKC quality control inspectors of the NRC's proposed course of action and ascertain whether any of them desired to remain anonymous. This was subsequently done.

066. Mr. Weil, are there any exceptions to the NRC's policy of notifying applicants of the substance of allegations received by the NRC?

A66. Yes.

The policy favoring disclosure of allegations to applicants has two irrportar.t exceptions.

First, disclosure should not be made if the substance of the allegations cannot be described in sufficient detail to be useful to an applicant without compromising the identity of a confidential source.

Similarly, an applicant should not be notified if the knowledge so obtained would enable an applicant to compromise the NRC's subsequent follow-up investigation or inspection.

The latter consideration is especially significant in cases where wrongdoing is alleged on the part of the applicant.

In the case involving the March 29, 1985 incident, it appeared to the regional management that it might be appropriate to notify Applicant of the substance of the allegations it had received.

This was because none of the allegations involved Ceco personnel and the information to be provided to Applicant did not appear to be of such character as to enable Applicant to compromise a subsequent NRC investigation or inspection.

Q67. Who was to participate in the telephone confe.rence with the LKC quality control inspectors?

^

9

l' -

A67. Myself, Mr. Schulz, Mr. McGregor, and the six LKC quality control

^

inspectors who had met with Messrs. Schulz and McGregor earlier that morning.

The telephone conference began about noon that same day at which time I was informed that 18 LKC quality control inspectors, in addition to

~

the original six, were present in the Senior Residents Inspectors' office.

Q68. What transpired during that conference?

A68. As I indicated earlier, the purpose of this conference call was to advise the six quality control inspectors of the action Region III proposed to take and determine whether any of them wished to remain anonymous.

Accordingly, I spoke with each of the original six quality control inspectors.

I asked them if they had any objection to the NRC notifying Applicant of the substance of their concerns.

None of these quality control inspectors expressed any objection or disagreement with this, proposal.

I also asked the original six quality control inspectors whether they wished to remain anonymous.

None of them reouested confidentiality.

After that was done, the other quality control inspectors in attendance were given an opportunity to speak. Ten of the quality control inspectors took advantage of this opportunity and made statements.

069. Were the statements made during the conference memorialized in writing?

A69. Yes.

They are reported in my April 5,1985 memorandum to C.E. Norelius, Director of the Region III Division of Reactor Projects.

Q70. To whom, if anyone, were copies of that memorandum made available?

A70. Copies of that memorandum were distributed to Mr. Norelius as well as the Regional Administrator's office; the Region III Division of Reactor Safety; the Director of the Office of Investigations Region III Field Office; E.G. Greenman, Region III Deputy Director of the Division of Reactor Projects; and J.F. Streeter, who was then the Technical Assistant to the Director of Region III Division of Reactor Safety.

A copy of that me crardur was also sent to the Senior Resident Irispectors at Braidwood, t

l

1. 2..

. _. u.

/.

A copy of that memorandum and the March 29, 1985 Schulz/McGregor memoranda was also sent to each of the LKC quality control inspectors for shem I had a mailing address.

e, Q71. Was either Applicant or LKC management provided a copy of your April 5, 1985 memorandum or the March 29, 1985 Schulz/McGregor memoranda?

A71. Neither I, nor to my knowledge anyone else employed by Region III provided a copy of any of those documents to Applicant or LKC management.

Q72. Why did you send the LKC quality control inspectors copies of your April 5, 1985 memorandum and the March 29, 1985 Schulz/McGregor memoranda?

A72. Copies of correspondence dealing with the receipt of allegations were routinely sent to the person who has provided an allegation so that the.

alleger knows that the NRC has received his allegations.

In this case, I sent the LKC quality control inspectors a copy of my April 5,

1985 memorandum and the March 29, 1985 Schulz/McGregor memoranda to ir. form ther i

of the NRC's understanding of their concerns.

Each inspector was~

requested to make any changes or corrections necessary to these documents.

Q73. Did any of tne inspectors respond to your request?

A73. Yes.

One inspector made corrections to the statements attributed to him in my April 5, 1985 memorandum.

Q74. Did you have any other involvement with the Comstock inspectors concerns on March 29, 1985?

A74. My only other involvement with those allegations on March 29, 1985 was to discuss those issues with the Director of Ol's Region III Field Office and with Region III management.

I also participated in a telephone conference with Thomas Maiman, Applicant's Manager of Projects.

That telephone call i

I believe was chaired on the NRC's behalf by W.L. Forney, who at that time was the Region III Braidwood Section Chief.-

That telephane call is

' l docu~ented in my April 5,1985 memorandum to C.E. No'relius.

n--

y ;

P Q75. Was the identi_ty of any of the LKC quality control inspecters who attended either of the March 29, 1985 meetings with the NRC disclou d to Applicant by Region III?

A75. Neither I nor to my knowledge anyone else employed by Region III disclosed to Applicant the identity of any of the LKC quality control inspectors who had made allegations.

I unders'tand, however, that the Staff has made available to Applicant and Intervenors in discovery certain documents which contain that information.

Q76. What involvement, if any, did you have in the Staff's inspection of the 1

LKC quality control inspectors' concerns?

A76. I did not have any direct involvement in the Staff's inspection of those concerns.

I may have answered questions the Staff had concerning my.

March 29, 1985 telephone conversation with the LKC quality control inspectors, however.

The LKC quality control inspectors' concerns were assigned to NRC Inspectors R. Mendez and J. Neisler.

Q77. What involvement, if any, did you have in the preparation of Inspection Report hos. 50-456/85222; 50-457/85-22?

A77. None.

I was occupied with allegations at other sites at the time the draft of Inspection Report 85/21-22 was circulated.

Consequently, that draft was reviewed by Mr. Stapleton, my alternate.

078. To whom did you provide a copy of Inspection Report 85/21-22?

A78. On November 8,1985, I sent a copy of that inspection report to each of the LKC quality control inspectors for whom I had a home address.

The preceding day, Novsmber 7,1985, I transmitted a copy of the inspection report to the Director of OI's Region III Field Office.

1 Q79. Does this complete your testimony?

/

A79. Yes.

~

1 l

l

. ~..,..

=..

t Professional Qualifications Charles H. Weil ORGANIZATION:

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III

~

TITLE:

Investigation and Compliance Specialist Enforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff Office of the Regional Administrator BIRTH 0 TE:

August 25, 1948 7

EDUCATION':

Master of Public A kinistration, Golden Gate University, San Francisco, California (May 1975);

B_.A., Otterbein College, Westerville, Ohic (June 1966)

[O EXPERIENCE:

October 1983 to INVESTIGATION AND~ COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST Present Responsible for the receipt, assessment and tracking of allegations received by Region III. Conducts special inspections of allegations, incidents and accidents involving NRC licenses. (U.S. NRC REGION III)

July 1982 to INVESTIGATOR October 1983 Conducted investigations assigned to the NRC Office of Investigations. (U.S. NRC Office of Investigations, Region III Field Office) 1 4

i December 1979 to INVESTIGATOR July 1982 Conducted investigations into allegations, incidents and

+

accidents involving NRC licensees. (U.S. NRC REGION III)

October 1970 to SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE OFFICER November 1979 Conducted personnel security, criminal, fraud, counterintelligence and counterespionage investigations involving U.S. Air Force personnel and installations.

Commanded various units of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations. (USAF, Office of Special Investigations)

OTHER EXPERIENCE:

February 1980 to Air Transportation Officer assigned to the 28th Mobile September 1984 Aerial Port Squadron, O' Hare Air Reserve Forces Facility, Illinois (U.S. Air Force Reserve). Planned and directed the operations and supervised the activities of more than 100 persons involved with an USAF Reserve Unit responsible for preparing cargo for air shipment.

January 1985 to Disaster Preparedness Officer assigned to the 9006 Air Present Reserve Squadron (U.S. Air Force Reserve) attached to the Federal Emergency Management Agency at the Hanover Park, Illinois, Emergency Services and Disaster Agency.

Responsible for the preparation of the Disaster Plan for the Village of Hanover Park, Illinois.

p--,

t-y v-wr

-t-g

- +

t-4-+----

9-g n

e e9 -

c

--po-'t tim ='g eye

T.

- - - - - - - ~ -

i u.;j

,s BCAP OBSERVATION RECORD Page 1 of 3

1. OBSERVATION No.M-I- 6 M-/44/ - C(

PART 1 OBSERVATION IDiDRIFICATION & DES.RIPTION 2.D N 31PTION ITEM (S&L ?.;ii. number & revision if possible): 3. PACKAGE NO.

FAAm H4 tCsrt

/4-o03.- I-3o52-csR-T-r-e.P4-to4 i

4. SYSTEM (if known):

Y

5. CHECKLIST / ITEM NO.

Su

6. UNIT 1 M

UNIT 2 l l

COFMON O l l

EC '

l l Procedure Revies l % Reinspection Ml CSR j

l RPSR l - l' RSCAP Documenta-I'VI'"

g g

Implementation 2

I I tion Review I l Other J0.DESCRIPTIONOFOBSERVATION:

& Mf4t4u.

/E"5' 70n h. * /- So S L #L (kut.# * )2**-

D t/ A O M

0 C i

0- %*(

Wk

/ N b{ u hn E e v3 a s h_m.bM

,dPo-O_=hhsT ene).

_OE Miu A u _.

~

Ag a r.w.

O M Jpefes

_,, sA b DM c,,. O-3 % af Bt)JLh M 3.3 LI G D P e % m A I" a bsvE 2 5 0 n_. sk W3rA nDM-t

@ W obs.n iw 32." h %24 *r.' E0a op 'm D L.L

Y" etd m L ( dl W -.~0

'D w t

<* m

,J ha,. % edr L M b' ' ' *TE j

w Sienature M 'Date 4

y PART 2 OBSERVATION CLARITY, COMPLETENESS, AND ACCURACY REVIEW

12. COMMENTS / CLARIFICATION:

Al ggI

13. SUITABLE FOR FURTHER PROCESSING:

14.

IgWED 8 :

_m

)

yo l-l

- % 25 4 3'

'/SMna ture" Date 0353J-5 BCAP Forn 06-1 (Rev. 7)

Ag004 W

.4

.CSR-I-E-CPt4 - IO4

~

~ ppt 4 E I

OF 3 o

.s

.u

$pttm) 7-o W. 4 '

A>4 G-D hMAA.% % h^TA % f&

A<_0;., b w ' % p 4 xo m

,maxv a a.

Q & % ; 3, t - ?!l0 6 2. H L.- 20014. AM i

M-Q"b-x A.~toLp &Wdkw'XK&

G55 a4.

).xo 4r4"tu.Le M

( n o.

ar m y ax,~m AA F*Ah h,

4 4

l l

i ARC 04654

4

.3 l s.,

El\\bT 3RN.C ^

I"SEM BBNF [

\\,)

~

75

\\

12{BerH. Mc.s c owN st.r. aou 5 F

E P5ool ScrH [

BRM N@CM5 64 X 4 x I PLATE

,)F

\\

Scn-H Bht-E Couu Ec.T1ou s a

/

I"BcTH 3RwE c.ouac.: nous t

s NHH kk"L LA.PPER BRN E CDMN EE.T. ioMS bI

)j skXsk X =MW

'i'

w /

q.x.f4 r m k ys

[

'.',. 'y

.e4 y-ext

't~

g TS

/

v'Nl J

ptATE I

(ns.+ MS.)

g,,

,'g k ytsr pSsoo on W

(e, EC EAST 4.

DIA CsCM A L cau M E' T mM S g"

ft lNE ALoM4 W P oF u N8STh.T i

AR004655004655l

m, P%W. 3 of 3 A,,

Wst. A s soc u,r.a. Tes l

/

v ris+

'i 5--q"

,, 4,x %,,

<-- R_. 6a x

+

_, g" "g

gp, - - -

- 4Y/,,

8 eBav. 2 a

4 i

Lower U,g OV A1

(_. %. a.s l"

r i

.-h E ast side.

4' kl..t v,,r,a,e 7

<--- R. (o'% x H,t s.

T75 --A v

11'/[

4. $--];t_.

'.-~ ~ - - fi g ~

y, p, __

-\\cs" a

. - E leu. 2.

M

~

AR004656004656

BCAP OBSERVRTION RECORD Page 2 of 3

15. ossr.RvAT1ou No.c5L - I - EE. -cM-lo$ - o I r

PART 3 EVRLUATION te LeirmuMRTION OF VRLIDITY l

16. EVALUATION

17. DETERMINATION OF VALIDIIY:

' d806 3 2. E.

)O "M ~

\\ ~ l INVALID af 6 [

.PoE -e - 3 264; le _7 iSd~ vALIo m We 5

oroh I'WMv//M dt.d act M-M ddai da Ladm.

is aHach). b.h

/%u-J '

d v

dAcfgs) v k/

g wf.4r",

754M.,

We i'A i

Akb RMie Jh,s 6.o M n

O w. w+. m u

wnt aua.x~,

w Bvg{. <-bra y I wh

,s w w

-d a

w do-7.

kos).ulu.. bun ) 0I 5 AL Y 1'S UkU c=$ k To TL M 1 u

\\l M icA.I W,

E M'4 m t.

VMf W emb.4

[

/.

TL 4 T

OS I2Nj' Le 3.1. a) L n w.P. s br<e <.

5 9

(_c.e cPA )

g

18. EVALUATION & DETERMINAT:

4-l1Y Sienature

_ **h~

19. ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

20.

"r.u BY:

21. APROVED BY:

Dete 1

jg/)

am f

g) 51onature Date if 514 nature

Datel Signature Date f

BCAP Fora 06-1 (Rev. 7) j 0353J-5 AP.004C57 l

.,. 4 a

t RCAP OBSERVATION RECORD Page 2$ f 3

15. ossERvhTiou uCAs4 - I - E -cpv -/of e /

r PART 3 EV11 t_m. TION & LETEnnialRTION OF VALIDITY

16. EVALUATION l'7. DETERMINATION OF VALIDITY:

l l INVALID g

VALID

%,, ac-L

-A

.,in d' u a miaLM g

o

,D u cEM 3 2 n'.

os

.ui2 5

(

b)

& A (\\.e.)

's et he &

t'n plez 6 '//a e.

~

C i

8, l Q 04 Y tt N Y N U"O

$=

w

(

C)

.I* Q qf M Y

d emMa s sh b4 by"4 47~M, u

't 9akfd ploh i<, *l/,4 4

t'm Il

// muid_,

v at v

A=l 4L44' h

)V r7-b

(* U w p. a y oul

WebJ&w eba et co/wW rau aa oL>2 n

.e + u : p 1 b + D V - n -

h:

e A-y Y L.

Y M **t4 N

ObJWbk 5

h'k Whe,A.

G-t9-W 18.EVALUATICN & DETERMINATI6 II* NM A-3 W Sienature j

19. ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

20 REV BY:

21. APPROVED BY:

Dete tVA E

-b> z 3 1

dA Signature Date I / V enature

/7 Dat e l Sicnature Date l

/

BCAP Forn 06-1 (Rev. *l) 0353J-5 AR004658004658i

4 mm Ga_f. Tim 2_. __-

Pepe 3 of 3

15. Geservkttcu up.c4R - E cold-lo4.o I

?-

E=T 3 ap"Aficar & -,--- -Tiens e vattn1rr

16. EvnLART1W 17.DETERRDETIW OF WALDITY:

1 1 zuwaka

@ *s*'r " *c 5

co ICI vnLa This cA u rdo-ion is

~ve M bv

..' u+ u v e.,

omi h am Dev[emcef

>t as oty Sa.ve af J /- e elt ernee dure, p i - s rs - e si, ( O c e

,g c

i 702 4

7od53.

'Lvedere,

hc.b-o6,

~

as o e.

y j

GL C.. 4.1 *S.

kii db S 6hfd "

fm ls O

S[c! G ACAP S C^ h#,

l l

20. ARGIT3CT/ ENGINEER EVALUhTIN 18.EVALURTIN & Dt?ERMDET angulaED:

l, l TRS lWND

I QPded

(-17-1 Sienature ne ti

19. ACDOWLEDGED SX:

21. B y ~u BY:

22. APPROVED BY:

hh.a :

t/a/pr aj gj sianature mate V

sfenature

' batel sienature natt SCAP Porn 06-1 (Rev. 9)

,g AR004659004659

~

BCAP CBSERVATION RECORD Page 1 of 3 i

1. cassRvnTIoM NO.d.5R -I - E d44-/M - 02

)

1 PART 1

\\

GE5iixVRTION IE-Z5EIFIcRTION & e -IPTION

2. DESCRIPTION OF ITEM (SEL dwg. number & revision if possible):'3. PACKAGE NO.)

4A&E PAh1 e4to1C m

/4o0 a.- t - sos 2.

652-r-E- t o4-c PA

4. SYSTEM (if known):

g

5. CHECKL ST/ ITEM NO.

6. UNIT 1 M WIT 2 1.,__ l CCISION 0 l l

ICE REG I ll Procedure Review l @ Reinspection g

Implementation h CSR l

l RPSR l l RSCAP g

gg Documenta-tion moview Ig

10. m IPTIoN or castavnTIoN:

b %. * /') - 3 R o 3-hV a.

A os.e ? I O i

/L b

G",.o YI) i

$n a tv WTkx ADa O A1%

i na1T vo % O D 2 a-t"% c.

U

IL-3 Sianature

%' Dite 4

i PART 2 OBSERVATION CLARITY, COMPLETENESS, AND ACCURACY REVIEW

\\

gwf*1-ts' i

12. COMMENTS / CLARIFICATION *

. or

.O "fL %

eO Ga s s er A 4 rr.-

i I5 9 ",

4

13. SUITABLE FOR PURTHER PROCESSING:

g EVED Y

/ M onature Date 0353J-5 "C"" ' '" 06-1

(V-7)

ARC 04CSO

-as

W

~._

o I;

BCAP OBSERVATION RECORD I

),

Page 2 of 3

^

15. ossERvnflow No.cEs

.E - E -W /8V-* h l

PART 3

16. EVALUATION EVALUATION & LiimamMATION OF VALIDITY alsC-O-32 4.3, MU'k

-17. DETERMINATION OF VALIDITY:

)[

} TNVALID EcN. d4r%.

fl ye){}sft?lW VAL 1D

' % dad n es she As a u2~tj y

a i

v thetIYk bb Y JNl b

I'

^! 4 o-3/g snAt na aedised sed.-

14 Y, Ibh;f s., N g

& b*

W-sk&J~ -

k I w N //.e of h,,, w '.,

4 4<-J d

w

~7 1/

ds pk

[ cst)

A 4 \\'~M N Jf^^-

Yl'15 lJ 1l h

b.$f/I]dL-%

l WA*<.$

G-\\ 9 trf \\

18. EVALUATION & DETERMINAT BY: Qd],

43ff

19. ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

20.

EV D BY:

sionature Da e e_

i APPROVED BY:

//fff al) yA n->>x sionature Date I/ ' ' tifi o6a t ure

(/Dat el stanature Date l

BCAP Forn 06-1 (itev. 7) 0353J-5 AP.0046S1

a t

=

f 1 g g.

\\.

a

...a.

tese 3 et 3

~

i

~'

15. CesERVATIm up.csR - E - E -cpH-1o4. c'2.

.l em, a p enTim a?Im aswattnifu

14. EVnLUntle 11.9B M T10M OF WALIDITY:

l ~ l INyhkIn

@ 8088IDE D saae 1

I Z I vnLID

'Tk k ek s t e tro-ie w is

~vord bv

/-utuve Calk e aum bev[erme.d

>t a s, oty Sa.ya m+

J L. u m $

vnce dure pi-ord e s ~( t.) cst. l

~

.s

(

7o2 4 7of,.

Tuvebe,

a s, p e,

& c.e - o 6

.y bELC. 4 1 *b it' i obEE,hl4

[du l' S o tf%'d EL TNCA P S CA bM.

i

-l i

20. namITscT/ ENGINEER EVEURTIM 18.5VALURT13 & DETERMDAM anguIRED: l[IYts l_ Iso Br: 06Sded 6-17-8 sienature ne ee,

19. AcxWowLsposD SY:

21 u BY:

g

22. APPROVED BY:

WA

C

+L ds/A-ad simature mate s h ture

' heel sienature nate 3ChP Porn 06-1 (Rev. 9)

ARC 04662 16633 l

t i

BCAP OBSERVATION Ref"YWD Page 1 of 3

1. CBSERVATION NO. k -[PH -IOi - 0 3 r

i PART 1 GEssin/ATION IT,EW LFICATICal & ECC LirriM

2. DESCRIPTION OF ITEM (S$ dwg. mmber & revision if possible):'3.

PACKAGE NO HOOK-I.2cggL gg, ggf-t, 30 ML W

'6R-T-E - (PW - 10 9

4. SYSTEM (if kni;r.sn):

5.

ST/ ITEM NO.

6. UNIT 1 l_]k,l UNIT 2 l

[l COf9 ION 0 l

[

CE Rt y

l~l Procedure Revie l 1 l Reinspection g

g Implementation l_ 1J. CSR I

I RPSR l_l RSCAP Documenta-g g

g = g g jY '" -

10. DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVATION:

tien Review 0-SR E A.t. av-ir.rA'. % err > oes t s+ rut to be a

e.44,,,A on rdate_.

feA hatem ko r t s_neto\\ AtruT. aT #a 4T ne At_'.a e

Iea.

AfruT ts n

a din e.b e A I84 north M de:ATfI.

y-4 11 PRE l.

li k PARED BY:-

1 % S M-3,

U ' Sienature i

Date PART 2 OBSERVATION CLARITY, COMP 1.ETINESS, hdD ACCURACY REVIEW 12.K... 4 s/ CLARIFICATION:

NON r

I I

l l

\\

4

13. SUITABLE FOR FURTHER PROCESSING:

}

g g

g 14.

EWE B:

/SMinature~

Y"27'f[

g

~g g

Date j

0353J-5 BCAP F rm 06-1 (Rev. 7) i s

ARC 04063 i

BCAP omstRVAT1oW arconD Page 2 of 3

15. OssERVATION No. d

- I C#14- /d J.B PART 3

16. EVALUATION EVALUATION & LETEieufMAT1oM OF VALIDITY

11. DETERMINATION OF VALIoITY:

RJ-efo( 2 29L dv,/4 u l

l INVAs.lo.

M 6[l?((

VALio rat s i J,.d is adsJ k!' eccu&

a n x w.-

rs. w ww t

4 y

Mk l90.$ fa dSd b1&

b Ydb We i

o l'!

OL Y

MfN i

i,,

l r

l l

i

~

{

6%S d.

<.* - n -cf l

18. EVALUATION & DETEJtMINAT I

'Y: W.Af

_4 2.-s

19. ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

20 "w'ED BY:

21. APPROVED BY:

Sienature Date i A/$

< AK 51cneture Date l / "' 'Snnature-ff kA i

/7Dat e l Stenature

~

Date

~

SCAP Porn 06-1 (Rev. 7)

AR004664004664

0353J-5

~

/

t

s 1.

Page 2 et 3

15. CBSERVATICW up.C4R - E - E -Cpid-f 04-c3 mm3 Ep' *m?Im & -

= Tim er wktYniw i

16. EVALMRTI M

17. N TIM or VAL p !?r:

1 1 zuv&LxD @ 88 2 scoes Ci vnLa Ws ab s t P da-ion is

~voa.d bv

-uht y e.,

Malkeatan Devbvmed

>e.

a s, oty Sa.v e m+ J I. e d wace dure.

pi-ors-a s ( L) cst.

L.

,g

(

7o2 4 7ot).

"n.ev4be, a s, oe.

E, c.e - o f.

U S e C..

4. 'E b -

ii d b S t.,fdd th I' S i

ott'O'd L 1ACAP SC^DE.

1 i

i i

l 1

I

20. ARGITBCT/ ENGINEER EVALETION 18.IVALUATIN & DETERMI.KA!1 j

RegUIRED:

l ~_ l YES l

WD Ud N' fo-O-85 i

Sienature nete

19. AmuoWLEDotD t!:

21.REjVI BY:

22. APPtWED BY:

w nianature thE - u gjfvfr

~,4 yA hate W

' e nnature Instel sienature v

Date !

x:AP Porn 06-1 (Rev. 9) 1643J AP.004665

1 BCRP OBSERVRTIM mamu Page 1 of 3

1. CSSERVATION No. c5R E -cra - 109 - y PART 1

=s--VAT 1ou E EifrICATIou & ;--31rrim

2. DESCRIPTION OF ITEM (S&L ewg. number & revision if possible):

3. PACKAGE NO.

dPM dApu e PAu M,%"t

larr2 b ee * >M_ e - t - 5 5 Z #

tar V

4. SYSTEM (if known):

Est'r E on tog S. CH3CKLIST/ ITEM AlfW EAMk/N t'C8I 2 <_PM-D+/32

.. -IT i ist

=IT 2 m a-o. O n

',=" =.==

'==v==== n eare a-Rec l [ l Reinspection I

I-Implementatic l 3 CSR ll RPSR l,,_l RSCAP Doceenta-Review gg tien ::eview 1-l Other

10. DESCRIPTION OF CSSERVATION:

i SEE NMc.nRD3rI,JreE3 m Dwtip_g 0F 605ZRV6umJ a

11. PR EDSk:

4 f//t ;

(Sienature D

i

)

i PART 2 CSSERVATION CLARITY, COMPLETENESS, AND ACCURACY REVIEW i

12.ametENTS/CLARIFIckTIW!

M4I

)

l l

1 1

f**

i

13. SUITABLE FOR FURTHER PROCESSING:

14.Rgy5I}3r.

", l=

\\

L m.g sienatGro Dat 0353J-5 W Mm 06-1 (Rev. 7) arc 04666

j Attcchment t, Pgg3 ) cf3 l

2 y

.s v

l

[

~l(

~

'~

mmMT75 Wront24.1 l l.

l l

/

SIZE,3v43.'s !

g I

.XDE.S.

g l

Si 1alMt C.W dW, I

i

.n

. p.,

i mamar narrPMmg meeinstibMK

6-hevi.c mg?,%

l i

wens n==

h.

=soe.

guw M

i i.

l l

e>10%IF @EllllE I

l l

.bror.n ;gy I

I 1DbTib:urWE5 t

E l

~ ~ -

i W 4 w 30 Ens 'pE.

I i

i. -

em sw.

x-i i

.i l

L.p. i 7

l~-.4 I

g4 =rrrv.cnns. g m g i

ar 1 U

u

- - ' m

SM-1 i

SEN iwm

- -:.e m l

W w. w w..

i

=:

i x-2 i r.",;;"a=,

e i

i _,

u..

w.

1

-l R257tCIDER.

tan: mesa wm n wr'wunaas6il l p 3(

i m.m i

l

', EvNN 8M l

ww.

l t

l

.f

,l

. Est'nie,i g

1 i

I FM.3dfm EE, p,

g Q -l j ll

\\

Ytra6TN : WTid1DO l

l 1 w4 f.' DetTA SQf' g

l W d 8 M 8 E -

KWeSE OF I

I Ung3m A du R tamranfr. du6adrM SE hT'hsrz a rm* -

a

~

x

-i 1

0Ft#EST1/i TtAE UGEA 322E Y \\ 1 g

j I

i y g. g,.gg. g,yu.g 4 %* 3X/i# SZDC.

'**l# W Ws%m Ttt I gg,g.fg, g.g bElbtDV$*d'/t*

trmTM m m.

m.mc y WTW11MB

'%' FRtt.T69.

n ErW gsigM va' Lit. wh 4 er* BCt $ZES.

sf,,,

gy y,.g,

,p.

.A

. SI6s Ys Rift D0DM, j

AP.004667 i

__,-.._--..,,-_,,,-,--,----,---,.-___.-n-_.,.-,_-,,,,..----..,,,,-,,,.,.n.n----

.-,.-,,,--_n,.,

..,,_,,,,,,.r--

i cha

.t.-e. - cr:) - sue

-e j

Attcchment i, Pago2 of3 i

?-

p k1Elh GPlle*000EL52ZE

/

64'4 6Fa* Sa(Agg.

l I

/

~

I

+-

I i

r l l

8 I

I l

I l.

1 I

i wnn d a g 8

l u

s.,,m m.

l

~

SETAA g

g i

i I

I i

u p m tx; w s t a x,.vs2.' m l

i I

f f.it* DIE libESTtur.

\\.

UAlbEff.Uri ystagi,v4WDt..

I

/

, m m.etwu es w.

WT ER IU N n MirI gg y,.,

1L b6 s' "If dr,"7WOPt4; 4

Mr. Ih*UNDERSZE4 44'A' TM PtxES.

SETCC iRifWRfifT:lg 2:2*tBf.Fu* Ia w rfr: % fgg, g.g y, ilAlwitn 'ig tag.y,,. DD fet*!HP.400ESRvr.

R E M.r2 LAIETWT ATENb or n f%'

< > 0, or wun..

/

I \\

Ic \\UNDucunreu,. Am.

umotun== m ums, ex os.f srtrnu sin'MP duents, m uutsit n.

f0N h%r AP.004668 l

Attcchm:nti, P0go 3 ef3

\\

?-

f.

j N

d/

AhY# hth r=

W PALM.

gy" W

GAMhRENr. cobra Jb N

r,-

r.

munwr.cu J

6't'Lak. W Yn'

I h*lEM 5tK.

y

~

, r--

t e

i

_u

" Wi AffA YcAgt

_g TR.'/M *DEEPp e

i h

n.num.

g a > 07, aFMMDL ansraw.r 1

l AP.004669 I

i j

a BCAP OBSERVATION RECORD Page 2 of 3

15. ossEnvAftoN wo. cCR-E - IE. 434-106-4 y

1 L

PART 3 M8 8_MT10N & Ei- -iMATION OF VALIDITY

16. EVALUATION 17.DETERNIMAT10N OF VALIDITY:

i

)

i-.i ruvALzo

{

1 21 VALin 1

[

GMec nuo thnAinzMok m &1 % Q

,,)

u v

4M O &

e&

amiskuh. % k+, %b 3

.g v

edNhw,

i t

4 I

d i

18.F/ALUATION & DETEMINA I l

"Y: W.dd 43,4

19. ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

20 REV BY:

21 gy:

%_s hfff gj l

NA sianature Date VI

'S%~ nature

' 7 atel Sienature D

Date SCAP Forn 06-1 (Rev. 7)'

(

0353J-5 AP.304670 4

IK:AP OSSsRVn?ICid P'CCa?D J

Page 3 of 3

23. ODGERVATION NO. CSA,~ [= E -cab- $OA-$

PART 4 EVALUATION OF DISCREPANCY 26.

24. M Valid l

l Invalid

@ Not Design Significant

~

25. EVALUATION (Include Comuments on Root cause):

l l Design Significant

~

M 6Vf hl LMOY b CN'~'L4 T/CW.C Centt/CERGb AGDUC6b ker.O PAepsstrtes ou e ro YA'r* R e p M re?)

es'ez.o Dissicmactas.

1/'.hes'G CAlculA 7s OAJ.C

,$Mru.2 'f7h* f @ d' DIC M ~_^?1 1 Moirda :

CA.+/ AC Atsdn'MoDA Yab k!/ 7J/ /+/ o'Abf As/ nnJ6412 An/b

).hLn l' A A AV/M&

AIn MJ/RE M& W Y't Atar

.Gs yt.rf/m (Attach additional sheets as necessary; do not write on reverse.)

s & L cale. #:

/9. 3. /. // 2. /04 Als1/ '2 l

27.

SPARED BY

28. APPROVED BY:

J

1d'A Al M 4-C-Br~

W xp,Mrg <s/jo/af-

'S&L Sirmattire D:te 5.~.L Slanature

'Date PART 5 BCAP REVIEW

29. CON, TRDIDING, PKCCRAM RINXXO'E10ATT(*':

i t'e 0.0 t}

QtC&$l bMW PT

$N 0 ' M 1

4er obsaw'dtn Cs s-z- e-eM-tre-r' isk re),

ey L 'Tu/

\\

v Jrw'Isi-di.seredores vd.

alt 2/fr-a gr y

I

~-

1

30. EEVIhVCD BY:

31. SLCtCJT SUPERVISOR:

i WAth

'T*I 5' W W.5 $,A$

hf5-

31st:3ture D3t0 l

Utgnatuta Da1 t-I tr.AP ( cit.: 06 1 (Rav 8; ARC 04671 (10 %1)

BRAIDWOOD CONSTRUCTION. ASSESSMENT'PROGPN' CSR WELD MAP i

Weld Map Continuation Braidwood Station Unit Identificatioh No:

csR J. E< pit Co ne Ed2 on Col Observ,ation Record Not C.SA2 E<w.s09 v Safety Related j,

Package So:

r<# T.E.un.saw Calculation No:

Component No:

um Revisien No: _

i Drawing No:

w.I - v51 bV Page of Inspector Signature:

M. k Cate Inspected:

//n/X4 g

d-/ 2 l

p<m % om h

i i

V

/

MZElv43v g

I I

2bLS.

I I

g g

E'3AsthM:

l l

9 ts

. YJfDIf.s ws mairn. g 4

MMm.

aannsr

Wtm(K

6-I

' M 4AT S E *iW3Vgf M LtEREEb FM FIRIPNP'n' N, l

l WillSIM-i urs n M E k 71 N l

l "qmWP

,g l

1 1

I r

1 ~r - ->

h> Wh Y SM i

)

l,,b smTH j

IImTU.urWEtIb

(

g I

We*4 %*lMikMId,.

l e

13tk'Fh&TM 44 4 1=* 30 C n 5 l

\\

~

68 SIM.

,1 l

k+ --ls

-.,..,g-.~_

-/

LEN80W g I -4I Sf l

-l linrwrn y,caggsgia

- W ."M#R SM. l l 9 5007n i

1 % *4 4 %

W S DE.

I

(

ee n on:pfgetg g

ammemy. g= ggg,g; 4 ALLwWi.1Dr iE!!

g I

l Wa*3fr.Pn'tElf.k i

,1 1

m_. n s,wer*m. -

l, M

y,,,,, g,,

3(,l ggagg WPr n M'ygyWtShl' l J(Rcarui.

Iff.LE umciswa l

! $NMk Ye N

I

.f

..m w,, p h* l l

l l

-' u, {se.nernu.ar#

y l

~

I l

'* */ i'a'#h(Tifl s tewm metan

- La*

l l

AR004672004672l

l W'

a

M h*'%-

g.4,y.'.g)MTA Saf.

y,

, gy' K lemeSIE or l

l f

gg% g.

y,*.,

r#p UG5NTSIR..

- g1 m W&QUsoJin5\\

eM y.i 1

0FU E STRK Tid i ggg g 9g4 3re b

IYO ) w y J

4 %* 3MM SIDC. 'I M "ileor;*,.Lha,. w wtg' Ms 'M W.

g l

46*LMe. '31'4CK, M*

m e 4W O(

a-j i

nat,Tu *-

g yik its YS'944 %*I E.Pd h 'W W.

{

NETH Shi..

~'84 TMf U Wii.tCB 1 *l M 8 4 ' E.f31'

% F1tte. T o P.

l FL EN TW TELSISM Ya' Llt '^cQ 4 W S$Tg$T,1lt$,

vtrVtnW,.yde*/..' }

I

,y, ng>.00%.NbTnt' i

e s

+wem--ves

---v vv f B w v

T- "P"27*9 8-W 7-temu-eW

=+eWF9"'e==Wrv--

e-Dem--*'-N-4'"NT*'-=r'-Tr'-

--et-SD N e-eu'W*er-m'r-ws-9T"TP NNW MWpp

i traidwood Station Unito Is' PopulOtient caru a paa; usaranc-Project 4603/4684-

-1 Identification Nos csn-p r. cts comenonwealth Edison Compan observation Record Nos cse.r E.cm-fov Y Safety Belated Calculation No.

Package Nos csk-r-E cM -mv Nevision No'.

Drawing Not

~Jo r-I. w x a V "I*

Approximato# Elevation: 2 ri oe -m Equipment Description CAstf PAMNAM5F Component Noa it m 2 N1 Inspector

/;

Signature:

M[M

\\'

Inspector:

[ gFrTu DMim <

Date Inspected:

f/' /V4f 1 1

/h2

,s i I

4 f P,'j '!

r gi e

g / gyj I

REY PIAN i

(Approximate Location)

I l

l I l

~

m W BR 42 tiernsr7F!

SIDEF4" IMbESZ2E KWdr,"Thl0 MAGE wr crME tu"UNDERSZE6 4*

<cw m nxes.

I i

g g m p e.*0000.52ZE n

a.

6PA 4 6Y ' BKAn 2

i i

I I

*4 6 4' 3 g

't l

3 ft

y g

i i

I l

l l

l

/

I ASY

/ V6f

1 g,

% r5-/

g-i g

/LY W

ARC 04673 so on

-e o

. -. - - -.. - -. -. -.. ~. -

m.r.

Populcticn:

CASL.EF PAN MAN 4 efts Breidwood statien Unito 162 4

.Proj03t 4683/4684 2dentification No CSR-I-E-CpH commonwealth Edison Company Observation Record Not CSR-I-ETPI-Io44 Safety Related Package h SSA I'E'-CM-104 Calculation No.

Drawing Nere 84L 888- (I.TEb*IlNa,la"w.[$3-Revision No.

Approximate Ilevation:

'E' #L. 434L80

-#*88

'I L

aquipment

Description:

CAsie MN %

component mo:

N002.

Q Zaspector y

l signature:

Nh//N >

-(1 Inspector:

.re M t' c u o Date Inspected:

7-N -h '

,)

, y

{

I)

/

R

~

ilR"

~

r:k ErY PLAN (Approximate Location) i r *8 i

,L.a

'afaev.

HANGER ELEVATioM VIEW Loo ktN S sodTH 4

i j

i 3

\\

l W5/ vim'e-i % n ss s

l wms

$6N l&js l

I Mg \\ k'

.,,pf +

x n.

i l

SEcTION 8-9 AR004674004674t

l i

1 n - - -,.

w ow ww

,--e-

-w,m

-w

--w,en

- -. - wa w v v ~w-ew-~-

g,-

cy--,-g--v-e---ee wnw-s--w~~wvv ~

kytST Md OATE: 2-S N

\\

\\ /

.TO:

L. Smetana "

From:

R. A. Brown, Sr.

Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory L. K. Comstock & Company, Inc.

Braidwood Station Craidwood Station The attached SMAW and Stud Welding Inspection Chekclist for the locations listed below is being forwarded to you for your inspection of the installations, C a \\e % Hy

m-v 30M %p)r3 s#cys

/52we.d5 weJduk //, /85 /43A0"1 Initial Inspection (

Reinspection ()

M R2 Q M

J2,5 HD M

\\l'f122. /3,S.7 E.9.<

e-cc: Project Superintendent Oh L. Facchina 2M*

file O

i 20RREFERENCEOMy 5 h

Document received by:

4, r, 7, t T.5. V 8 h

l u/ h vi, N

-n gw ys L

Q c V-)..

1%.

V.

~

w arc 03989 I

L K. COMSTOCK 0 COMPANY, INC.

SRAIDWOOD 4.8.3 WELD INSPECTION CHECKLIST ya ga Teepr Oao829 3.1 FILLER METAL E309 EXX10 EXX18 EXX13 0 i

DWGS/ DETAILS MDb !"' 3OI REV 7 COMMENTS b

AM b OI9 f/.) ~ /3 b~

~/

5' Marc.

/62. we.lcl5 '

we]dhr#- JI H T DCR 1 6 AC R EJ N/A 3.2 FIT-UP COMPONENTS IS CORRECT.

l lU.

3.3 UNDER CUT IS WITHIN MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.

3.4 CRACKS / DISCONTINUITIES DO NOT APPEAR IN JOINT OR PARENT METAL.

I ll l

3.5 SURFACE POROSITY lS WITHIN MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LIMITS.

3.6 SLAG OR OTHER INCLUSIONS DO NOT APPEAR IN FINISHED WELD.

[

3.7 THOROUGH FUSION EXISTS BETWEEN WELD METAL AND BASE METAL I

3.8 FILLET SIZE / THROAT, GEOMETRY OR PROFILE CONFORM TO PROCEDURE R

REQUIREMENTS AND DRAWING DETAILS.

3.9 ARC STRIKES OUTSIDE OF PERMANENT WELD AREA HAVE BEEN GROUND RR SMOOTH. OR REPAIRED AS NECESSARY.

3.10 WELD <AND SURROUNDING SURFACES HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY CLEANED Rl l

OF SLAG. SPATTER. FLUX, AND OXtDIZED PAINT, ETC.

3.11 WELDER AND INSPECTOR IDENTIFICATION ARE INDICATED BY ASSIGNED U

SYMBOLS STAMPED NEAR THE WELD JOINT.

I*

3.12 WELD IS A RESULT OF A REPAIR PER ICR, NCR NO.

A/ A RR

/

REMARKS:

i d N' DATE )*

SIGNED

/

SIGNED DATE QC INS (ECTOR

~

LEVEL ll lNSPECTOR FOR REFEREE E ON y i

p

(

AP.003ESO PREPARED APPROVED REVISED TITLE ORIG. D A TE REV.DATE FORM NO.

RAB RR PROCEDURE 05/26/80 19

Fcrm VWI-1 R;v. 3 2-14-79 C.

g,"'*!e3 PrnsarasaTm.rna Lummaar -

.s

..,4.<,........

E. '.

, =.'i I'NSPECTING ENGINEHitS AND CI!!DIISTN

" ^ ' ' ' " * ^ * * * "

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 4498 W. ROO.EVELT 2040

~.

"'" **** 88ao's *.*

AnsAcaossia.cwicaooea ss4 AAEA CODE ata. SUSURGA8 449 8000

........um.,.

noon.............u.....a.............m...

Order No: CH-3175

'"n..'."..".'."."..".un.'".."..".'."..".'".."..'"..n."."..u'."".".."..".."..

Client: Comonwealth Edison Project: Braidwood Station Repcrt No:

Jd 94/ /d>

/

REP 0RT Report Date:

J -5 6,- P.2-of Visual Inspection of Structural Weldinq a

~

Contractor: 2.4'8amshd Page [ of 2 Orawin Weld Weld Weld Size Weld

__ No. g No.

Type Actual 15pecified Length Ace Rej Rej Defects Noted LBo D H H2 4 f, //e)-

7, h

]'

V r-e o

o

+

.c v'

r-C In

.3 '

/

/)

4 3

V

~

c_

c

[

4 3

V i

+

.s ~

c. -

h 3'

V f

a" 7

TR 3..

y

- IR (6 ft 1? W m ii

.J.

~

M."r O ! 190 f1 1

un. u

\\

hW A f

tO G B

hj i, W

m a u n c. a u. s u., e l / Ccnfonning i

I Non-Confo y

. by[pble f

Acceptance Criteria:

& t v A / /. :rf-I Remarks: /9ne d?/6 c Ad y;'/, ' N67. '//'2 -/2 8n.fd2dyr.,? E

/

v

/

/dw3c./4 /d % M/f,,,2 inspected in accordance 1

with IS-BRD-9-AWS. Rev.1 '

Inspector: Wz /V) w dzilevel:g Inspection Date:

/. 7#- # >

i

,}eviewedby:

--fC J_-

Level:__C

()

SAFETY.RELATED

UN u

~

.u.n

n...u..

.....s.

..u s.

...u.

...~...au..,,,,,

.........u.

.....u...

....,a

....u..

...-............on u,..o..

-s......

.-...-...w.

.eu,.........u.

,........u.

.................u...............

......u.........-................- u m a.........

..................u-s...... u.

o.......

F;m VWI-1 Rev. 3 2-14-79

/.%

DT8BMM TESTELTIi L'LBDEATDHY C.

ff th estaeusi.c0 issi E'

'I a -

INSPECTING ENGINEEllN ANI) C1I10IISTN

8"*^******

%*+e'j54.o {!/

3 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 44f8 W.ROO9EvtL' AO40 M'a88's si uaois *** **

r aneA cOct sia. ewicAeo one.s 4.

AAEA CODE als eueuRSAM d6 5080

..... n u

.un..

.u..n.,n............u w..u n...........,,....

Order No: CH-3175 a " ' " "

u..'."...".'u,".un.'"..".."..'."..".'".."u".n."."..u...'.'n"*..'.'.'."..".."'m"".".."."...-

Client: Comonwealth Edison Project: Braidwood Station Report No:

ro9 V v4/

REP 0RT Report Date:

J->g. f 3 of Visual Inspection of Structural Welding Contractor:

4.K0oxshek page d of A Drawing Weld Weld Weld Size Weld No.

No.

Type Actual

. Specified Length Ace Ref Ref. Defects Notec A3eran Ar 8 <//d N

h N'

(

c A1

\\

c.

'h T'

/

\\

/

s y

3" v

/

E~

9 J'

V

\\\\

\\

f

/'

/

J' V

N t;

I v(' Confoming i

I Non-Confoming Not Applicable Acceptance Criteria:

4/M a//.-rf fbis d~.4 8A %74 YY dl/l3 -/.2

$ +.'- 4'd?D f Remarks:

y

/[ dog /09f

- Inspecteo in accorcance je with IS. BRO-9-AWS. Rev.

Inspector: W///2> m M-Level: g Inspection Date:.

J J# <P.2 eviewed by: Ur

/

Level: #

SAFETY RELATED AP003SD2

..............................................................................................{

u. u,. u n a...

u,....

.,u..

..u......

... a.-

o u.................

..............u....u.u..............u..........................u......u.

.u....................... -.....,.....

....c....e, 6.

4 =e n..

s.o=*.

..=,....

..=e.=.=ou..

i

--,-----w~

l CGSC00'dY L

1 w

M i

k

=

cm mw O

E ci E

e

... e M 4kk g

av

~

ce

,z c'.3

=

a o

e N.- r a D

w c

e 0 EiE,

5 9

E 9

w d

E h

o

5, Lt_

c Z

Z i) 5 i :

ec 8 e

7 s

t 4

]

,i

,e o

..)

g $

W

-l

.s

==.

N.

5 4

eo o

4 y

se Ez k

e h

i m\\

N

~

e s

* ~ ~

4 e

f G y// / de * ** *

'CATE: f-/S-YI

'~

ds /S fl AN f.bf 7

TO:

L. Smetana,

From:

R. A. Brown, Sr.

Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory L. K. Comstock & Company Braidwood Station Braidwood Station x,

The attached SMAW and Stud Welding Inspection Chekclist for the.

locations listed below is being forwarded to you for your inspection of the installations.

dAtfM /M //se

de 024(--

3ws so<-i-sseu g-v,is.r ic IMees (.13P)

T D M C-Initial Inspection (X)

Reinspection ( ).

W} L

'fW A

%arsdIb w.->

e Na'o 9

% /f63 9.z.-

\\ M//0 h'6 0

\\$'r[

\\ G/c

g. G-g%pt/0'

//IL U poos (As)

J W-

.e - - -

cc: Project Superintendent L. racchina I *O*C' file O

-4 2

h!

op$a1 h

Document received by:

n 2,

FOR R[ESmN[a m W h

m,,,

a m

m o

t ARC 03994 m

AiI YL& /ADVSW

/4&fLi~

?%! h sa ys g raur~

t kELD DiSPECTION bEbXLIST

~

\\

31 FILER lETAL E309 DOGO O

DD18 h EOO 3

^

DDS/D5TATLS ps./- em >/

FEV

/;* W CO:+1 des

/%,ra )),J L s'. dis 171w AJSt.A4xt

// GW '4'2,6 : JV7 / V *t s

7bs~%e-LJ/AdWJ 3P h ACC RE3 N i[

32 FIT-UP COIPO!GES IS CORRECT.

i Rl l[-

3.3 UIER CUT IS WITHIN IQT34 REQUIREO7TS, 3.4 CRACKS /DISCOIEDiUITIES DO NOT APPEAR 3N JODE OR PARDE JE.TAL.RR[

35 SURFACE FOROSITY IS WIEIN MINIMUM ACCEPTABIE IRITS.

U L_J[

3.6 SLAG OR OIHER INCESIONS IO NOT APPEAR IN FINISHED WELD.

I l[

3.7 THOROUGH FUSION EXISTS BEBEEN WELD METAL AND BASE METAL.

l l[

3.8 FILIST SIZESHROAT, GEQ4ET. RY OR PEOFILE col &VRM '1D PROCEDURE @l l[

REQUIRE 2eES AND DRAWING DETAILS.

3.9 ARC STRIKES OUTSIDE OF PERMANENT WELD AREA HAVE BEEN GROUND LMi 1[

SM00IH, OR tu.rAIRED AS N:MM ARY.

s 3.10 WEID AND SURROUNDING SURFACES HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY CIF_ANED tr!L.._J[

.OF SLAG, SPATIER, FLUX, AND OXIDIZED PAINT, EIC.

3 11 WEIDER AND INSFECICR:3DENTIFICATION ARE INDICATED BY. ASSIGNED l 4 -ll l[

SYMBOIS STAMPED' REAR.EE WEID JODE.

3.12 WEID IS A RESULT bR A REPAIR Pa ICR, NCR' # ' ~ "~

l

-l l I[

ME prrecHes hAS.'Lffd H IIe + nin 'oa.d F2 %RKS:

SIGNED oM DATES /.5'~-8/

SIGNED kM DATE $~-/Ia-U

~

V INSPECTCR EVEL II INSPET FOR REFERENCE O!TJ

~

AROD3005 PREPARED APP R OV E D REvtSED TIT LE O R 6G. DATE REv.DATE PAG RAB PROCEDURE, 05/26/80 Fom :

RR Oas 4

... w w r -....... -

QA5'*{

I I.KCI/QC A7?ACF.::I :7 "-**

WORK INSTRUCTIONS WI-BRD-4131-001 1

R.7.. A CONTROL NO.

I3D To:

I. De*4ald

[

IROM: 's~ry h}ti [l!y The attached document (s) are required to have corrections and/or supple-.

mentations made to meet the standard requiz,ements. They are forwarded for your review and disposition.

Deficiency Noted:

.e.s..

Recommanded Action:

nm.a h0miQEop*n ji. 22-n y1.v.

a.c.

FORREFERE Action Takan:

L ~.l.

f_

n-h.

llj A wa.w i.s wr i u.w,. 0.

d we e

_5Gyg/

rww. <:u +

ek T~o C~o L G(/

" 'X n u c~~ U t s n f72-S E C Y 4 7' T /r*.S Yo, C-

')

V-7-3'V I

aP.003SSG U "QC ppector Date /

j N mb bO

/Cerg perrJor aee i

i I

u.

l

i. ::o cover sneet 2.

No C/L loc.,

3.

No Recuest no.

a.

No amount of welds.

5.

No amount of hangers 6.

No valder symbol /no.

7.

No drawing no./rev.

8.

No hanger I.D.

~

9.

Checklist reviewed by an inspector not certified in hanger / supports; Q.C. inspector was certified as a Level I at time of inspection.

10.

Q.C. inspector not certifindin welding at the time of inspection.

11.

Cross-cuts not initialed.

r 12.

Color of ink used in checklist is in question; Is not suitable for filming.

1 13.

indicates an open status.

14 needs clarification of 15.

amed clarification.

j l

FOR REFERENCE ONLY 16.

Other I.

i

//u_<. WHo and 1/tc 7 Si,h w /nsno < S~en bon <

4o etn ctA-t y

l

..cE da.le Sou.

Re -thsnee.f o r re-e va lube s

AR3G3997

j

~

L. K. COMSTOCK O COMPANY. INC.

BRAIDWOOD 4.8.12 QA SE QC INSTALLATION / INSPECTION CHECKLIST 0F SUPPORTS / HANGERS FOR CONDUIT / TRAY SUPPORT / HANGER TYPE

/2'[

DETAIL /REV.

///

TRAY HANGER NO.

/9 CONDUIT N0/ID AV 4 LOCATION (BLDG)

Mu x-GRID _ C-U //-/5-ELEV. W 9 DRAWING NO.

/- 3n v2 # REY. T ECN'S/DCR'S/FCR'S

A AS BUILT YES (xG NO (

)

YES NO N/A 3.1.1' SUPPORTS / HANGERS INSTALLED PER S & L DRAWINGS

~

AND SPECIFICATIONS.

Ej l

l L,_j 3.1.2 WELDERS'S QC INSPECTORS ADJACENT TO FIELD WELD-WELDERS STAMP 78 e

QC INSPECTORS STAMP

,Pp EP i

l I

l gr...m 3.1.2.1 FIELD WELDS HAVE BEEN TOUCHEDIlfdER C,M '2hMZ.

S & L SPECIFICATIONS.

5-l2ijeT C I

l 3.1.3 BOLTED CONNECTIONS ARE TIGHT AND CORRECT HARDWARE USED.

I I

l l @

LKCf 0F TORQUE WRENCH

4 NUMBER OF BOLTS

-e-80 T SIZE-fr rg-

0. nc A. v D fica.

ALL hNCR'S ARE INDICATED BEL 3.1.4 I

I 8 cg4 1 n 59

_O 2 12 -f Y REMARKS M 4/r- //

/a,r Me d da m/,m A c/

}

?s?

(*

T.

/2

</

7

/

n D, fr A., q, [

-M-g s

/ /> s i

j

=-

/ao no r-

, u_e s% HM 9d 7 v. -ne ni i,, 3 : - -

n n w n a :

4./ nn

,, w -~

.AD Y d '//-//

t_ e, LA G - P-p z.

.Fi.1D. R..FFF.R..F.E...F ANU 3,ggg Ohk2

/2 //u/n REVIEWED BYdo)l'AL

/2. /W-8 z.

Q.C. INSPECTOR #' -

DATE T.EVEL,/I INSFECTOR DATE

~

PREPARED APPROVED R Eve 5ED TITLE o m sG. O ATE REV.DATE PAGE RAB RR PROCEDUP.E 5/27/80 Fom 7

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~

\\

g N

e g

m k,

?

o z

SM c.

T.

plh 5.0 M%

=

e

! E D

\\

- m w

_s s +

s g

=

4 5

h 3

I~

m E

C M

3 e

m D,

o

.=

a.

s E

E N

a w%

ww e a n

eu ik 9 s, M,h g

u.

8 m'

a 8 BA,a m

ii;

=

9 18i Es la !

~

m w

.5 9e E

9 l

l l

2 FORREFERENCEONlY G

9 g

l i

L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY. INC.

OC.

MEMORANDUM NO: 8MS-c /

\\

7 l'

TO:

o tt

7 F L *-

DATE:

J-/S"

l I

l

SUBJECT:

C &b L' 84*

2 D 's ed Aod

7 C A uR C D 4

PRIORITY NO:

CABLE NO:

NN

/

NA CONOUlfNO:

' Al lA TRAY 1.0.:

!A M

LOCATION: COL:'

MA ELEV:

AREA:'

f REF. ORAWINGS:

8/1 o c. ek u. A t.

M. 9. /.'!.

i s

I l

OESCRIPTICN Ou A ! 's 44 lad s' I e. U

A : A can; A

.F T: m r 'J, <

cs u,.

a.-

r o ',

-.r n,. g a f:. s, 7 m.3 a c

e.,T a 6 4 T.

. 4 a e.e A//A

/d T14 7 h. /

4.s 77 wu l

a. o a a. a, w c. - u,n/ ra.

roso2..

18s z-led l

is A M P n,n'n a n ; l h a hwad fann 77 8 + A'?N83 rw 24 Osen Ar Ar.

.e e

i (w < 2 D RESPONSE AEQUIREO BY:

Al/A T>

.. - ~

RESPONSE

Al/A DATE:

i

.i/

^

/W l

e-i 1

....u-FHR HFFFHFNi2 HNLI A.

m,.. -,.,.:

m oov ty,,,,,,,,.

i (1st Paml - CRIGIN ATOR: Marnove Golden Rod Coov:Porward White. Canon and Pink Coo es to CC C:erm j

(2nd Party)- CC CLERK: Assign Contros No.: Yake Log Entry:Porward Wnite. Cacary and Pint to Addressee (3rq Party) - AC.CR ES.SEE: Reta,n Pink: Return White see Canary to 2nd Party

~...%...

..e........e...e......

cago...

L. K. COMSTOCK & COMPANY. INC.

GA S :-

LKCE/QC ATTACH: r*T "C" WORK INSTRUCIIONS WI-BRD 4131-001 REV. A CONTROL NO.

P// / '98*

l TO:

T. F. Corecran

/ /. A/M

/

FROM:

The attached document (s) are required to have corrections and/or supple-mentations made to meet the standard requiressants. They are forwarded for your review and disposition.

Deficiency Noted:

Ree attached shenen t

Recodaanded Action:

Reviewer Date i

FOR REFERENCE ONLY

. = 1on Ta -

<t m e r, c p a a%.,

90-os-m.o /

L$f PCCe p g?tg p,qedrh gf Wpp g, of fy$fcc ygow 4

)

kr/dr ta//--

). u.ry QC Inspector Date Yw & y -

>-%-S1 sukrvisor n

.n e

it.. c.,. 0-1 s.. v i

9 1.

The bottom portion of the form #7 is illegible and including the Rev. Date.

h Conduit / Tray No./ID not listed.

@. QC Inspectors stamp does not correlate with weld symbols of the hammer cont;rol log.

4 Checklist reviewed by an inspector not certified in hanger /

supports; QC inspector was certified as a Level I at time of inspection.

.d a 77-27 l

C Inspector not certified in hanger / supports at the time of inspection

'6.) Error in

7..? </t cap,e; Is not lined out,

-dated,

/

or initialed.

7.

Color of ink used on checklist is question.

Is not suitable for filming.

8.

indicates an.open status.

9.

needs clarification of 10.

Need restoration copy due to felt pen.

Form #7 Rev.

is an out-dated revision at time of inspection. v

[>DrawingNo. incomplete /incosrui.. O' "~# #

13.-

I4' method of close out of NCR/ICR #

proper at time per procedure?

14.'

Comments for not initialed and dated.

15.

needs clarification.

16.

Cross-outs not dated / initialed.

17.

No welder's stamp.

(It is required.)

(8 Other.

v !. ' r.:e r o m _m.,, ~ w. m-e e c

. :c.

I

~

l 4

ACC04C02 1

BCAP OBSERVATION RECORD Page 1 of 3

1. OBSERVATION NO. O R - 7. - E.

- G A - 10Y - 4 PART 1 OBSERVATION ID.dTIFICATION & DESCRIPTION c

2. DESCRIPTION OF ITEM (S&L dwg. number & revision if possible): 3. PACKAGE NO.

CPH r* Bi c PAA)14AEfE

14U2 bWs *202 - f -2DSZe Zar /

4. SYSTEM (if known):

LMT t t fs 104

5. CHECKLIST / ITEM *N(

M37 Khun/N rLO T 2 -3i+.r0-s t 34,.

6. UNIT 1 lM UNIT 2 l l

COpetDN 0 l

l M T SERVIC 8

E" g g.

gq2

l[l Procedure Rev!

lNl Reinspectiong~g Implementatior

} M CSR l

} RPSR l

l RSCAP Documenta-I'*

I I tion Review !

-1. Other

10. DESCRIPTION OF OBSERVATION:

SEE MITIEMREMTl. 37%f$ MR 1)F<r1LTviwa 0F 005ERVaiuW E

11. PREPytED BY:

WJ2-- *-

Wn/

/ Signature Da PART 2 OBSERVATION CLARITY, COMPLETENESS, AND ACCURACY REVIEW

12. COMMENTS / CLARIFICATION:

Mx//

13. SUITABLE FOR FURTHER PROCESSING:

14.REVI DBYp f ' kh dl4-/S yn _ g g

Sienature Date 0353J-5 Fom 06-1 (Rev. 7)

R.00 M03

e san n.-c.-c.rtr - tus '

.Attachmant t, Pog31 of.)

E y

t j

g

, w a sr7e. w oa u t.n A

mr. 3v43v ct I

l i

.3Ib E.$.

I i

p.l

lMdW, l

e p.,

i i

u aounmu

^

tcmAfrP:WenWI

8 g

i jIMMI g f WE1D47 f". %

ThMATSIll.h'NW -I E rem a FM m s a e.

rowwn ETutGitBOTH l

I

[

m, ancre smyc=

I rnunT 4*d4T5dLD@E.

i l

N FMu 240m.

l l

1

-t I

N

.> my w mm i

l l

i "/

.g

.... Jh.

inbTH :UTulE1 i

d2 l

...c, -u i USMt(E: %'15Ir18 M -

W4 V 30En5:Pil.

I i

gk o v.st 0ER.1% ransLT0f l

NDEA SrbG.

l l

L+.. i _"

aan : w#-

' -4 ar I y

wrmusmensra

' C'N' *- I_

i I

iw4 wass.

wntnam & OF,

[

jmMN'F ;Ligpfi[{IJ.W'3'

\\-.i 1

W s tmar,httm s.% %i m KVI.lDPtS Dt l

j 1

.l -)

l_ F g

l Ya lan6. tuitEE. 44*Li 1

RassctIva.y.

wer nen'veuuta56E l J4 trisw mssa i

arts etw i i

I

! Ya'N M N 06 ESC,t/T: Y8TSNr.

i i

g

./

n. aanE, ysz be

~

KTOP,3Wm SIK.

I i

'g g

/-

l l

I natsm : HetWtan T.$,#'c"E i i

l i

W4 Y.' 06RTs 5Ihf.

\\

I I

Ys 'd L'SWTM SN-gggigsggop g

g UpESIMi09 ft tmMRDF du WM 9 whb S~ZE' Yd -

t

~'

x i

i CFOACSTUT THRr.:

ER 3

1 h 4

]

'l l

M'UR* * 'U1'M JL'D UND,4. g g,

I L

9 l uMBE"LST: V,**LE Yrf6, 5" W N'

'/W DE&y$@g*

V5'lSh W W.WC LEAETH r}&ulElbtn Ytt.'*f '/1 ~

9s *FR)thTO?.

g.y yggggq,ygt LEmit : V!T Wi.tDCB rs/,:' FR67.TOPJ t t CEW T14m *pCINSIDE Ya'*

NIDfdr 3/s."da' '/**L tr.sovrp 4 Y Bait SIMS.

,yv OEi>.'dmatSIB'i W FMA poi 0m.

ff h h*~

i,.r. u.v m

~...-

~

4 CSR-T_-E - Cf# - sJe

-t Attcchmont i, Pogo?,, of J

'~

g tanD w 'II *00BELSIZE 6 4 4 6 Y " 13hSDE.

1 1

g i

v i

i I

I I

i l

l l

/

\\

g WuDmsunnensus i

g e w rem.

SETAA l

l l

l I

I I

I i

UNwmK:w m.varumt I

l.

v aroet eiw.

(l 8

UMbuu".Uri Ys7.fNk k id!DE.

+

[

f WDEF 04UlGSRVC.

e M/7 BR WEf.D M 7Ff SIDE It VMDOEZ2E s'4'V 64'71JJ Pa..

M W KB"UMbtM6

/4'/s* TMI PLACES.

SET.CC twnnrr:ihim bsidlK. M '

M VIR": % Lau6, % s~ g IP @

f 31'0EP.000AE5Rur.

6 ggstg ggg, y,,.

M.UCDW40 UuETINT ATENb s > C?* OIMhT91PL.

/

N arrame m.w m.

u a m.,. ic

' k'W MGE-WsDL. UCDEEP. t SELTDD 04 Un1ISrtA.

AP.004C05 1

.p& 1%.-

I 2

w n

c. - w iw r Attochm2nti Pogo 3 of3

'I q))

w.

'~

rav;ww

YZLM.

1%~

7p COM h'E8C M'DE

__k. [I

%-(-

a t-

,Yi Ys hRtSTitILE:

maar.r.cutu P2712. r rni a

Uuw ati1tvn-

+ DM.hlDM5tK.

1 g

+

t c

_m

N000{ AEEA* YsVAEDE7 TOP.'/H"D EEPir e

e

> umme av=

n o7. mia.

svr=

t GDRT)t angu 1/ETDMS Ehrantts

/I J

AP.004036 l

l I

t o

BCAP OBSERVATION RECORD i

Page 2 of 3 i

15. OBSERVATION WO. CCd - E - b -GAM- /4-4 PART 3 EVALUATION & DEiExMINATION OF VALIDITY

16. EVALUATION

17. DETERMINATION OF VALIDITY:

l l INVALID

@l VALID (d e(e t U.N1blS S$ W U.M bE$&t&

MD U

V umhtcak a amid d. W 6

a.

%hA Aeordatw.

O I

l l

l 18 EVALUATION & DETERMINATIC BY: gy 4,9 g

19. ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

20 REV D BY:

21. APPROVED BY:

Signature Date 4/A 2aj fffff A{k o1 Signature Date V/

'S Wnature

7 atel Sicnature Date D

y BCAP Pora 06-1 (Rev. 7) 0353J-5 AE.UO'N7

_.,..,_..--.._-.e:--,.

-.,,---e w-.,,.e-

.. ~,

9 o

-..c - w..

!.... Cw^

Pese 3 of 0

n. ca.,:vc,r:w ro. C.SR-. T E -cpn-ic4-Q g :.' a -

rw.unric 1 c: cr*:camo 25.

M Valid j

_l Inva1id M Wt Desl<;n Significe.nt 21.

75. C'/ALUATcCH (Include Cocuments os) Root Cause):

l l Design Gt ntCic.nnt 9

~

SAMenrlLuanyI cAc.ca.A rieu.s cea.cicegga naDucGo wet.o PAoPGRTIEs Dc)E 'to YA/f' REPORYe?)

k%z.O D4CN/ UGutics YNe5'6 C.4L Cul A '7/ OM.C

.,L4rn) ~f7H1 f fMgr' o/Ccaa:sowy (euc,yse /

W A5 ACWOOA 7ED (J/ 7// /d cobf

.A// &_ #

/ hlb l.Dno C A A A-V/H&

0ph.u//2EME:L)ft AtF S M is f/E's\\

(Attach additior.a1 sheets as necessary; do r:ot scrite ca reverse.)

S S L Calc.

i9. 3. l. //. 2. /D4 12EL/ '2 21.

REPMCJ D' :

20. AFFAC' ICD B':

~

l l

- l e.t A d W-6-C-V W. -. D & 6/5,/ssr

'C&L f:ir:n..t": e D2:2 n..L SI mature

'Oate PART 5 BCAP R3 VIEW 29.Cjr l'.'.9 TRDTD!M, Pr'tX'ET.M R"'rYf,7CiDATTCf3 bie edabufica ti ace-edh!

bW!

P1 dh MiM Ary 3 b.t 0 2 0 $ n C.1 A-I-E- cpf-ffb-s" pgis(ch g ffg/p'&/

V

__}L-ll>A'.d4**

b'l(A M N' k.

I W y

g1 y

v Al',00F L8

0.

J.^. m::o,;Y:

31. 3L ;ur scatw/ scy:

W0[

7-1 N~-80 W

_.&J. 'Z/g'S~

Isas ture Dat:

I

' unce.ur u

,w

.._ _ a_ _

r.w... ra oc - 1 (.e ;v. A )

";c c

3.- ;,;.

e i

BRAIDWOOD CONS'TR CTION ASSESS.v.ENT PROCP.PJ:

CSR WELD MAP Weld Ma= Cor.tinuation Braidwood Station Units Iden t 2 ' --

i ^- Nn:

C5 R -l'. E -C1/1 Projc:t 4683/466:

Corv onwea-lth Edison Cc=

Observatien Record No: CSA 7. DON.id4 0 Safety Related Package No:

/ < p. T-E -(_PM -la w Calculation No:

Component No:

He2 Revisien No:

Drawirig Ko:

Go E-i - 3oS7_ %V Page of Inspector Signature:

Date Inspected:

M/f/N6

[

', (

[

u.

' bf2

~

ultl.1) W '%~0 @ 0L

/,.

l

_1 i

V J

.s m.rs,43i e g

t I

I 2DE.5.

h DAIBM ff' 3W4I1M 1

8 ww.~'tstDip.s l

I I

3 A) ub m 2.9 WE.tW7E*. % Uttbtt.d M

j mTS V4W -f MMDM i

l I

M M-FIM6frWkh, UlE p <r7E' N*Il I

]W' git @

g "nME 9'4 E.

i 1

Y I

i i

=

=,,,

s ~- % =,

e > 10), qF /MimOL i

7 I

I l

/r nuTH

,m r sw b.

(IETU LITuEtS l

I I

UllDfLGI : %'t.0hlr.'(s'uM.

sis'4 W MGsM.

gx

,'inw.swvanaTDr yg4 5 gasK l

l

-\\

NOKni SIbi.

m., p.o..~ -~;.., : -

.)

l L+,,

LDidi'M r hXKWB.C- ' -M I

i sr I

E nmna,cwasm 54Na m I i

so m 9

t%'4 4b' WS.

~

WDERG#:0NTN 0i i

l fN%m @. hl W 'Il

\\-J i

i_

I

'.l

.,.....m.

N FJ!51TCIIVELY.

i I

WM t# W B M "/d'Uh)bik bd-l )4 i

'/8'4 '/(A RT M.

r73 4113-l l

I

%*4 NSlid'Di.

y, g

Uk)Dhf.,UT: */$'t.3)l I

q VW R \\_

s

?[f, \\g 1

ns'uG.bi. 's:*3EGk I

1 W TN. M. W.

I l

n E ' * ^ ' ~ ca.c ow w-l

~

l l f f

Jhpg g,.; g,y n

yg. y ma U M W *1.r'lJva a W 41.'ColtTA Sar.

Ys G.'re/Dfff.

1

'/8 'd L'Md W KrmM OF l

h,h 1h U E S N T 0u R..

i L'O*M' h~ -

lq,,Ys4 {M'!!

Uu'yerr du MJTM S!

x e-s e

0FaNI.57tR TraG UMMR SIZE Y S T s%3)V ) e,,.: 2 l

i

.%,vant 'ucL1.he_.

4 h * %n SIM'

' UHCTVUI: k'L3dt 2T dIbt..

gg.g gt' i

,sfs,DERjt g g M

'/5'Lh W G. Dr-t 1

i mru.mrJeaen uw w wmm l

INTH ' HIDE.

CLE Y cci.rg 2

LE06TH 'uar Witti'a off F1ttr, Tap Et ffW M INC245IM 4*

LV WM 4 Vi 6M 2%

gycreyr. 3f,, yo, w r

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ * ' ' '

l l

l

CSR WELD MAP Droidwood Station Unito 1&2,

Populktion:

CABLE PAM #AMirEM Project 4683/4684 Identification No: ~

CSR J-E-Cr#

Commonwealth Edison Company !

Safety Related Observation Record.No: CS R T E CF# -10P V g

Package No:

CSR -I-ri -cpn - 04 Revision No.

Drawing No:

T E-f - MS2 H w V Page of Approximate Elevation: 2 ft 43 4 '- M

Equipment

Description:

u nir PAA/Ainire Component No:

If M 2 H.1 Inspector

(~

Signature:

'M[M

(

Inspector:

[ KEITe _DMAGELS

~

Date Inspected:

/WI' 11

/

2 b

p 7 til 0 k Sh f

~

fe 4

f*

Q h 6'

A l

fg I 6Ps*

i KEY PLAN g

1 (Approximate Location)

+

I i

l I

\\i

'l M BB e.p>p 2 WELD SIZE; SIDEra-t/Mhf<T7F s'4y f y,g ptg 3T3 ME. Ys"UMDERSZE6 ys' V 4 4* TW P4KES.

MM) W ' 'll.*Uuba5IZE b.

h v14 6 Y ~ SKLSE 1

I I

I i f4

\\ CYs., ;

i Yf

\\T_ _

1 i

I I

k 6Yi

/

I > y q vgrj I

i

/

i i-wet.o r?L ONDERWE l

"P.004010

.5' s W TO SIDE..

5FLT A A

<eerpe 2

.=.

=:

lt s.,

~un, car 42 g of t _

i

Popurlation:

CA SLG PAN HANGERS - --

Croidwood station Units 1&2 Project 4683/4684 1

Identification No:

CSR-I-E-cPH commonwealth zdison company I

Observation Record No: CSR-I-EWH-fo4 4, Safety Related i

Package No:- ofA-I-E-cht-lo4 Calculadon No.

l Drawing No: 541. 888 1MI.ElNt. fa"er.N)

Revision No.

Approximate Elevation:

'E' WL. 434to Page of Equipment

Description:

ch6te PAN HAN M Component No:

H002.

!!.2 Inspector p'

Signature:

[/ M/C.k /

Inspector:

re f e/('h i Date Inspected:

7-34-8 '

y N

I ga

-2

< r t

REY PLAN F-(Approximate Location) r"*8 I'

L.s

%J.

l JANGEst ElEVATioM VIEW Loo k(M G, SooN U

l l

l, l

y, set

'la

]

' *3 ' f 'A ' V ' Yz" g

l Ys s c Vz i g 4 is i

e,/c s

floh ley) Y* \\ Y2' l

l ya y yg.)

r nf..

,, q t.,,

0" SecTION B -B'

-

ML20214F199

Contents

Text

= = m-r

Dear Administrative Judges:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Description:

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE

Description:

Description:

Navigation menu

ML20214F199

Text

= = m-r

Dear Administrative Judges:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Description:

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE

Description:

Description:

Navigation menu

Search