ML20236M718

Rev 1 to WP-17-SQN, Vendor Weld Quality, Welding Project, TVA Employee Concerns Special Program

ML20236M718
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	07/28/1987
From:	Rose J, Russell J, Schofield E TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML20236M702	List: ML20236M699 ML20236M718 ML20236M735
References
WP-17-SQN, NUDOCS 8708110200
Download: ML20236M718 (14)

Text

'

[ TUA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: WP-17-SQN f SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE: Welding Project REVISION NUMBER: 1 TITLE: Vendor Weld Quality REASON FOR REVISION: Added additional infortnation based on NRC conunents.

I l

PREPARATION  ;

PREPARED BY:

Originni signed by E. R. Schofield 7/20/87 SIGNATURE DATE I

l REVIEWS PEER:

Original signed by J. E. Rose 7/20/87 SIGNATURE DATE TAS:p i 0 (A> C 7 87 SIGNATU$ / [ ATE CONCURRENCES ]

l CEG-H:f., ,,,.) T 8nm n- ye -p 9 .;

SRP: O ps,n r ;/ tv C -y'~~ 77 9 27-77 1 SIGNATURE DATE / SIGNATUREf'// DATE j APPROVED BY:

wa 1*28*bT N/A ECSP MANAGER DATE MANAGER OF NU LEAR POWER DATE -

3 CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)

• SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.

4 5957T 1 f

8708110200 070730 PDR ADOCK 05000327 P PDR

__--____________j

WELDINO PROJEO~

I I

GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN I

EVALUATICF REPORT REPORT NUMBER: WP-27-SON, R1 DATE 07-10-87 l

SUBJECT:

VENDOP WELD OUALT"'Y l

l l 1 l l

CONCERNS CONSIDERED: IN-85-127-001 l

• IN-85-007-003 l IN-85-057-001 l l

• SPECIFICALLY INVESTIGATED BY NSRS IN REPORT I-85-753-WBN l PREPARED BY ~ ed f E. # T N o DI/A 7-f(: 'E7 , 00, WP REVIEWED BY b-  %

] b , 00, WP RETIRED BY , QA, WP CEG-H, WELDING REVIE'JED BY ,

AFPROVRD BY ... PROGRtd MANAGER Revision 1 added additional inf ernation based. on US ITitC comitments.. -

e 4

00360 4

CENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN

SUMMARY

SHEET Keport Number: WP-17-S0t!. F1_

Report

Title:

VENDOR WELD OUALITY_

l 1

l I. CONCERNS CONSIDERED:

IN-85-127-001

• IN-85-007-003 IN-85-657-001 1 f

• Specifically investigated By NSRS in Report I-85-753-WBN Attachment 2)

\

II. ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Vendor welds are not of the same quality as TVA field welds.

2. Vendor welds are not inspected in the field.

III. STATEMENT OF CONCERN / ISSUE VALIDITY

, Substantial <,d: Y I ,N .

Validity: Y I ,N IV. EFFECT ON HARDWARE AND/OR PROGRAM None <

V. JUSTIFICATION (

i Vendor welds and equipment are inspected against contract requirements.

VI. RECOMMENDATION AND/OR CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDED None

,N I .

VII. REINSPECTION NEEDED: Y VIII. ISSUE CLOSURE By this report.

II. ATTACHMENT

1. Text of Employee Concerns

2. NSRS Investigation Report - I-85-753-WBN Page 1 of 1  ;

)

00360 I

i

.b

i d

1 1

GENERIC EMPLOYEE CONCERN j

Report Number: WP-17-SON. R1 1

I i

Report Titic' VENDOR WELD OUALITY I. SCOPE OF EVALUATION This engineering analysis covers the following WBN concerns determined tc. have possible generic ir.plications at SQN:

IN-85-127-001 l

l

• IN-85-007-003 IN-85-657-001

• Specifically investigated By NSRS in Report I-85-753-WBN (Attachment 2)

II. ISSUES ADDRESSED BY CONCERNS Each concern was analyzed to determine the issues voiced by the concerned individuals. These issues are as follows: )

1. Vendor welds are not of the same quality as TVA field welds.

2. Vendor welds are not inspected in the field.

III. CONCERN VALIDITY OR SUBSTANTIATION NSES has investigated and substantiated the general condition of vendor welds as they relate to WBN in Report I-85-753-WBN for E=ployee Concern IN-85-007. The conclusions of this report which are WBN-specific are also applicable to SQN. These conclusions are as follows:

1. The employee concerns are substantiated as they relate to the observed general condition of vendor welds.

2. A similar problem had been identified, reported, documented, and disporitioned -in accordance with applicable QA program requirements at WBN.

Due to the general nature of the concerns and issues voiced by the_se concerns, the conclusions are applicable to vendor welds in general.

page 1 of 2 00360

WP-17-SQN, R1 TVA invokes technical and quality assurance requirements in contracts for vendor-supplied materials and equipment by reference to industry codes. These contracts are reviewed to assure that required technical standards.and quality assurance requirements are included. Many times the governing codes and standards that control vendor weld quality have requirements Which are less stringent than the TVA construction standards in Process Specifications G-29M or G-29C which contain welding Vendor-supplied materials quality requirements of ASME, ANS1, and AWS.

and equipment may be source inspected by TVA prior to shipment or shipped without TVA inspection from vendor facilities. This program is outlined in the OC and NO QA Programs, as applicable. When source inspection is required, it is performed by TVA Vendor Surveillance personnel to determine compliance with code, standard, and contract requirements. Items not required to be source inspected are inspected when they are received et the site to determine compliance with code, standard, and contract requirements.

Additionally, for concerns IN-85-127-001 (Bergen-Patterson) and 1N-85-657-001 l

(YUBA) based on reviews of Procurement Quality Assurance Branch (PQAB) contract listings and discussions with the Procurement Branch neither Bergen-Patterson or l YUBA were awarded contracts for SQN construction cotoponents.

l In summary, both the field and vendor welds are required to meet applicable code requirements. TVA field welds are visually inspected to 4 a more conservative interpretation of code requirements relating to i visual weld attributes. The final appearance of TVA field welds is generally superior to vendor-supplied equipment.

The issue concerning vendor welds not being inspected is not substantiated due to the vendor surveillance program and receipt inspection programs.

The effect on the hardware is of no consequence because the materials and equipment are inspected in accordance with contract requirements.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the issues considered in these concerns are closed.

l I

i Page 2 of 2 00360

Attachment' 1 D3/29/05 (CMPLOYEE CONCERNS) PAGE 1 of 1:

11:4D:58 -

LOC STATUS RESP -CIC- 'PPP CFR ItJSP TC ------CONCERN------- PRDELEM 3a 355 ,EGLG GD , NR, IN-55-127-DD1 - -tJCr1UW-

,::. f WORDS : UENDOR CRITERIA DIFFERENCES.' X: W Y: C E: Ni l

INCONSISTENCY IN CRITERIA USED FOR UELD INSPECTION OF EER3EN-PATERSON AND TUA HANGER WELDS. E.P. WELDS LDDR BAD, WHILE SETTER LOOKING TVA WELDS ARE REJECTED FOR CDSt1 ETIC REASONS. HANGER FAB SHOP. LCCATED AT SOUTH EAST CDRNER OF TUREINE{

ELDE., HAS SINS FULL OF E.P. HANGER PARTS WHICH EXEMPLIFIES THIS CONCERN. CI DOES I!OT Nfl0U SPECIFIC HaflGER tt 'S OR AREAS Ill THE PLaflT UHERE THIS CONDITIDil EXISTS. '

TECHNICAL CDt1MENTARY: '

ISSUE CONSIDERED: UENDOR WELDS ARE iP OF THE SAME DUALITY AS TVA FIELD WELDS.j LOC STATUS RESP -DTC- PPP CF t: INSP TC ------CONCERN------- PRDELEM to l 753 N5RS JD -

SR IN-55-DD7-DD3 WCMUW I'EYUDRDS: UErlDDR UELD DUALITY NONSPECIFIC . N: W Y: C 2: N!

GEt!ERAL LDDK DUER UENDOR WELDS SHOULD EE PERFORMED. UENDOR WELDS ARE NOT IN-SPECTED AT WBNP 1 DR 2. THEY ARE EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE FRDM FIELD WELDS EECAU$

i OF THE EAD DUALITY OF THE VENDOR WELDS. UENDDP. WELDS WOULD NOT PASE THE SAME I ACCEPTANCE -

_tJSP RPTH I-BS-753-WBN) -

(NICAL CDMMENTARY: .

ISSUE CONSIDERED: 1. UENDOR UELDS ARE NOT INSPECTED IN THE FIELD.

2.

LDC STATUS RESP UENDOR

-DTC- UELDS ARE NOT OF.THE SAME DUALITY AS TVA FIELD WEL PPP

• CTR . INSP ' TC ------CDNCERN------ PRDELEMj JD ID NR IN-55-557-001 UCMUW KEYUDRDS: UENDOR CRITERIA DIFFERENCES -[ X: U Y: C 2: N 1

SEVERAL UENDDR WELDS HAVE SEEN INSTALLED IN THE VARIOUS LOCATIONS OF POWER UNIT 1 & 2 WHICH DID NO2 MET _I THE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA C5-25 M) DF TUA WELDING!

SPECIFICATIONS. AS AN EXAMPLE: HEATER C1 LOCATED AT T15 & G LINE ELEU 709'-D" '

TURSINE EUILDING.~NAME OF UENDOR: YUBA, HEAT. TRANSFER "

CORP. CDNSTRUCTIDN DEPT CONCERN. CI HAS NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION."

TECHNICAL COMMENTARY: -

ISSUE CONSIDERED: UENDOR WELDS ARE NOT OF THE SAME DUALITY AS TVA UELDE.

a

( ,.. .

,,.' ' .'. , -(

. , .. r , . J. ', . . -

I

. t:  ;

,e I

i AR_ ~j ~ A - MN ~"'

(ttachment 1

. page 1 o( 8 FILE CO.W UNITCD STATES COVERNLIONT h[C7710TdM d um

.. s TENNESSEE VMEY AUTHOPyY - l l l

To  : Craven Crowell, Director of Information, E12A4 C-K Attachment 2 _

Page 1 of 8 - - - -

rno31  :

K. W. 'hitt, Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff, E3A8 C-K F

onc =

' J A N 141986 l 3gg;gg7, REPORTS SUBMITTAL FOR " NUCLEAR SATITY UPDATE" l Attached is one copy each of the following final reports of investiga-tion or evaluation of' employee concerns for your use, summarization, '

and publication in Nuclear Safety Update. All'1iave been reviewed and ,

accepted by NSRS. -

Investigation Investigation Concern No. Performed by Concern No. -

Performed by IN-85-001-005 NSRS IN-85-007-003 NSRS -

IN-85-278-002 NSRS i; - Di-85-955-001 NSRS IN-86-064-001 .

NSRS <

IN-86-2 00-003 NSRS IN-86-221-001 NSRS . ,

s. .

D7-8 6-3 05-002 NSRS "

PH-85-038-001 NSRS

/

o. -

/r f K. W. Wnitt Attachments f Please acknowledge receipt by signing, copying, and returning this transmittal form to J. T.'Huffstetler at E3B37 C-E.

( o- .

cc: ,R. P. Denise, LP6N35A-C .hame , .

,, Date ,

D. R. Nicho'Is, E10A14 C-K .

J, QTC /ERT, CONST-k'EN * . .

Q. E. K. Sliger, LP6N48A-C .

4 J .1 . -

C______________________________.__._____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l 1

, 1 o

Attachment 1- ~

i Page 2 of 8  ;

, u -

m Jl .

~ .

\

i

~. a *

... 1

-), ,

, I TEilNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ,

, s. . . .

NU: LEAR 13ATETY REVIEW STAFF . " .. -

)

- s , , ,

. \

l NSRS INVESTIGATION REFORT NO. I-85-75~~WBN - ..

i 3

4 i

EMPLOYEE CONCERN 5 I.N-85. OO.1-OO5 AND . I.N-85 ,OC 7-DO3 .*

.; : ,;. m r . ..' 1 .m, ' . . ,& d, ,".>. ..?..'., .

- .- *~.~.~,~

.. .K;

, . . . . s .?), V ,

' . : .i '.

. .a.

. $s.  ; ' .3.., , . ..:i'; , a', '

..;;v.

J, .R:N. .+ ..-

.u 3,i.&. 6..,.3 :%g E.. ,,pl,t.u'. :. .

.. .. s. , j .9 . ; ..ai . .l,,: M, I L E3./..%',;:/

\' 'S .J .T

. +: 3

. Pv .

',',, < ,'l

" . :1, -

a -. .

,- ' . v;, .., ,4

, . . . .g.;. j ;< g.,....-t,,.>. . :1. ff. . ,',. . . . -.-

. ..- .., ", ,. .s :

.<>.,v....... ..a. ' ..,.

. - .v . - . ,,, . , . J .;

• s ,-

• l, - , ' , ' , is' --

4'"*+ . .f *T, s '

EUEJE T: VENDOR' WELDING'

. ,>.e.. - :f, ,( ,.,,s.

- 1: - ,

Novemoer'12,' ICE* 5 T7, p'.

DATEE OF INVESTIGATION: .r 2

5'gi W L/- - . ----

/ / --------~b ~ -

INVESTIGATOR: .- .

Date ' ' " ;;

C. Cat 1in J.

i.. . .

• *- . , 9 I . , . ,. .

.# 6

..,. .g .

s'. i q.

. . . .. , .f. ,!.~.

.,.4,,.

a . . . 1~.9

-  ;.0

" * *: _f~ ~

'( JEWED BY: .

~ ~ ~ ~

D2te i-DISEEh.

O. .' d..~

d~'

s 1 . , u. .e .1 o~. . .

." - s,.,  ;

V [ h-^ /D * - ' .' )l

• J AFFROVED BY: . .

Date Har r.i .s on . s>.+ ,.... . u .

\

ft A. .

, [y .. .. , .- , {. . .,. ., ,,

. .p -

. ol i

• i

- . - s- .i

.+ ,

. . - 4

,1 I

g.* -

te I

{

i

• i ,6" * / (' ( , ,

, ,l J .,i - ., ,.- ,

.I

, , . .( ' ,~ i.

P 8

e lc, .l1' l5. .

a ',..

.. .' ',' I $[ r .J i k <', .i

.u, i'.

?; . . . . . . . ,

,; e

' f, .J! .j.' t , . W)3 ,

. ,,..g, .2.. a t.  ; ,

• 7 ,

.< d,,-.i .s..,.., , . _ _

-

• eo~~^- , -.--s--

, }. . . .-

• h 4' f g y

, * - j.

4'.

. . t',.- , ,.

, -C'..-

t-.

6 e

- k , en,

. e ,

E

,e y4e l'

f e

I l' g l.-

f

. -)

9 . f f. 8' i 8 s'. l s. *

. . ,,{

\

. . , *" , . ), ' .,, * . ,

• o , .e

,g, of I

.e ,

6

Attaenment 0]

Page 3 of 6

'* c ( - *

(

1 g, a

. w. -

- J~

%. BACKGROUND ,

investigation regarding tero' emclovee honcerns heceiva

. NERS conducted an Concern IN-E5-OO1-COS received oh by Duality Technology Comcany "Vencor. (UTC).- welds were bought off even though Ehc:

October 15, 1985 stated: The allegation was nonspecific. -

e::hi b i t e d 'shoddv wer kmanshi c ' . " 10. loS5 stated: " Gen er.al look ov:i Concern IN-25-OO7-OOO received June vencor welds shoul dare be perf ormed. "^ ' Vendor.:wel ds are n"ot inspected easily distinguishable f rom field welds at because:

WBNP 1 or 2. They l

cf the bad quality of the vendor Thi s allwelds. egationLVendor was al so welds nonspeci .tould not pass fi c. During. t same acceptance. . . ." 1.e.,

the course of theThis investigation ,a simi,lar concern was noted:

I

, . IN-85-372-OO1. concern had'been, investigated by the Office .-

of-

, f .s

',, Construction and _. closed.;out b y,. QTC. ,' d y.M,7'? . . .N_

'M c.. w ,; r..; .s.SI,gs 4,ml.y -

v;.". ,,

m'- c a. . - . ,

1- }i' ,

H -

II. SCOPE ,,

T'o h stoce'of the investigation included attempts' to find-a more speciff

~

e::smol e of the allegation and to track the e:tample to its conclusion. li OTC could provide no aeditional information other than to verify that f the concerns were similar to.IN-SS-37,2-OO2. ,

3 3. .,.. . '

<.t . 43 ,

9 ', ., 3, %. ". C " ,Ph; *.

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS III. .. ,

il .. .

j .. j

,, . . .q. , ,

A., .

R,eouirements.and Commitments

• a.- '7 , The nonsoetific nature of the' allegations rendered all requirement 3

h;:h,:Q4 q,;.

1 q

(, ' m. , l ' .,

. and commitments indeterminate. .

.i

" -B. Findines ~ * -

j

..c covers as aj

1. Employee Concern.IN-EU-572-OO1 cited manway hatch V specific example of, substandard vendor welds. .  ;

l

.~ .

i p NCR 6341 was written on September 25, loES which defined the !

nonconf orming condition as: ' " Contractor. wel.ds f or stiffener l 2.

plates on hatch covers appear to not meet requirements of AWS; D 1.1. Welds appear to be undersited in places 'and have under(j 4

- _. - and- 6verl ap.7 Ref erence empl oyee . concern IN-85-072-OO1. ".

.._.2 _

. , m  ;; - m p,g;,,g;<g. , .g; . 3,. ..; , ~ . ,, __ !

q were written on September 25 and 26, 1985 i __ _ ' O._ NCRs 6045 and 6345A 2,' respectively. ~The nonconforming ,d covering Units 1 and of NCR 6341. ;

,g

, condition noted on the NCRs . y, was similar to that _

a

4. A statement was issued on Employee Concern IN-85-372-OO1..whis tN in part'that 00 agreed that these welds were not of stated cuality e::pected of TVA personnel and that the contractor wel for stiffener plates on these hatch covers did not appear tol t meet the requirements of AWS D1.1 and also that the Welos (

7 '. appeared t6 be undersited in places and have undercut andwere d

, overleo. These were structural attachmentand. welds'which therefore, thet

'," part of the reactor primary containment;

(- ,,,

did not rec;uire a l eak ti ghtness . :. . -

test. , ., ;> v Di sposition of all three NCRs by.Encineerino was to "use as d *

. 5. ,

in accordance with memorandum E06 E51018 007.

h____._.______.__.________. _ _ -. - -

• Attachment 1

, , Page 4 of 8

, o l

i

= -

l 4

• f 4j .

~

CDrCLUSIO*E AND F:ECOMMENDATICNS -

A. k"o_n

_ _C _3 _u _T _* _

O_n _T, '

+

w ,

1. _

The ob,j ecti '. e evi dence of a similar emplovee concern .

sut st anti c.t e d the observed allegation of both conCEfned i ndi vi dual s (C ). . . . .

C.

l l

A typical case of a similar problem had been identified, reported, procedures.

and documented in.accordance with applicable Di sp osi ti on was to."use as i s. "

Specific conclusions regarding these nonspeci Fic allegations could not be reached. .. , .w d". i .

,zw

...,_~ , '

,,n , ~

- . ,o r-

.-= 'a , . .

,s

,3, , , ,

E.

F .e.r.cmm_a

._ .n.d _ . a.t__i o_n__s I

.f.: '

None. .

l

.i 6

)

8

,. 1 l

l

,:, .f .-

.g ,

c;,,

,c 'e

... - ..e....3

.. l g, .

. e.

, f' .

[

w  ;

e

..:- , e. .3. . j

e. ,

i. ~

'4 .

s '

'o;- '

s e

a.f

, r .

e.

..y . :

.ij i; l

^[

E  %

~

• , g y i $. ,

- - - , _ , , , , , . . , _ . , . - . ~ . 5, hof; '. ,

. ,- -.* '.n., , , g, ,,".,, ' ],,q.4 .- .. ) d, 'gg.  ; .. n ,

it

,? ; . . 6. . e ** *

, ey.p i 1 .g..* * ; ,']

. e,  ; ;

f  ;

e._.

. ' . .! , ;. .! I ,i7,f,, "U, g.. g. ,M,(E M-*.-....4...

.l 2 , a s

..\*..

li; -

.s,g.

I  !

e.

1 g l '

8"

,. (

a

$ k'

.I e

9 e

9 .l,'

.*f p*

• I f '

9 8 Si o

, s. .*

P S

a

. Attacament 1 Page of B {

C ]

~

j A..

I,

- ,\

~

EMPLOYEE CONCERN DISPOSITION REPORT l

t CONCERN NO. IN-85-OO1-005 DATE OF PREPARATION: 1-9-86 1 1

)

CONCERN: Vendor welds were bought off even though they exhibited j

" shoddy workmanship". l l

l 1

1 INVESTIGATION PERFORMED BY: TVA NSRS FINDING (S): See investigation report.

. J

(*

v. .

a i

l

~

l CORRECTIVE ACTION (S): Similar problem was identified,, reported and documented in accordance with applicable procedures. 3 Disposition was j to "use as is".

=__ -

~~

CLOSURE STATEMENT

This concern was substantiated. _

(. .- ERT. Form Q

'6

( _

'. ' ~ [ Attachtnent Page '

of 8 1

hb A.

i

~

EMPLOYEE CONCERN ASSIGNMENT REQUEST ~

To: Director - NSRS TRANSMITTAL NUttBER T50011 ERT has received the Employee concern identified below, and has I assigned the indicated category and priority ,,

,gjd priority: 1 Concern # IN-85-007-003 Category: 05 Confidentiality: YES _NO (I L H)

Supervisor Notified: YES X NO NUCLEAR SAFETY RELATED YES -

Concern: GENERAL LOOK OVER VENDOR WELDS SHOULD BE PERFORMED.

VENDOR WELDS ARE NOT INSPECTED AT WBNP 1 OR 2.

THEY ARE EASILY ,

DISTINGUISHABLE VENDOR WELDS. FROM FIELD WELDS BECAUSE OF THE BAD QUALITY OF THE VENDOR WELDS WOULD NOT PASS THE SAME ACCEPTANCE

.6' Q.

4,-

4 .:.

.. ' ': _y

. . . . i

! ~

i

, s.

. 2

/ -

'G q.

~" ~

I ' MANAGER,.ERT t .

DATE ~:- -

I.

s I NSRS has assigned responsibility fo.r investigation of .

! concern to:

the above-I-

, , ERT e

! NSRS/ERT / g ggg

. NSRS. I g //l/f/{T lL_ ~

f .

OTHERS (SPECIFYi)' _ W

• lli -

~

Y W f

~

Attachment 1 1are 7 of 8 c

(-

ren =

mas .

l

~'

REQUEST FOR REpDRTABILITY EVALUATION

1. Request No. _IN-85-OO3-OO5 '

(ERT Concern No.) (ID No. , if reported)

2. Identification of Item Involved: VENDOR WELDS ,, _

(Nomenclature, system, manuf.,8N, Model, etc.) ,

t 3. Description of Problem (Attach related documents, photos, l I sketches,etc.) ,

VENDOR WELDS WERE POUGHT OFF EVEN THOUGH THEY EXHTBTTED SHODDY _ j 1

WORKMANSHIP.

4. Reason for Reportabilitys (Use supplemental sheets if necessary)

A. This design or construction deficiency, were it to have remained uncorrected, could have affected adversely the safety of operations of the nuclear power plant at any time throughout the expected lifetime of the plant.

No X Yes If Yes, Explain:

1 DND .

. l B. This deficiency represents a significant breakdown in any l portion of thn- quality assurance program conducted in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B.

No X Yes If Yes, Explain:

.. 1

~

DR C. This deficiency represents a significant deficiency in final design as approved and released for construction such that the design does not conform to the criteria bases stated in the safety analysis yeport or construction permit.

No X Yes- If Yes, Explain:

g. e I t

p

• , g l,,

e ERT Form M

( -

(

At taciunctit 2 W

Page 8 of 8

f .*}u&-T.u5fV vLI

3s I

l

' REQUEST'FOR DEPORTABILITY EVALUATION l

D. This deficiency ' represents a significant deficiency in l l

construction of or significant damage to a structure, system or 1 j component which will require-extensive evaluation, extensive I redesign, or extensive repair t o 'rneet the criteria and bases j l stated in the safety analysis report'or construction permit or l

! to otherwise establish the adequacy of the structure, system, j

-or component to perform its intended safety function. l

. Nc% X_,_Yes. . a a.I f.-.Yes,... Ex p l a i n : . . - - j l

l l

0,_ R

]

E. .This deficiency . represents.a significant deviation from the i performance ' specifications 'which will require extensive evaluation, extensive redesign, or -extensive repair to establish the adequacy of the structure, system, or component to perform its' intended'-safety function.

[ No __X Yes _ If Yes,. Explain: ,,,

N i IF ITEM 4A, AND 4B OR AC OR 4D OR 4E ARE MARKED "YES", IMMEDIATELY j HAND-CARRY.THIS.. REQUEST...AND. SUPPORTING.. DOCUMENTATION TO NSRS. i

)

l This Condition was Identifi d -by : hl e- h ERT Group Manager

. / ERT. Pro,)ect. Manager i

Acknowledgment of receipt by NSRS 4

{

t egg _A. Date O3 Time Signed / .- .

l i

ERT Form M j i

l

_ __- a