ML20064E443
| ML20064E443 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1981 |
| From: | Sager H CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Daniels F NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20064E073 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-206 QA-1481, NUDOCS 8301050472 | |
| Download: ML20064E443 (336) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. t 9 THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY August 20, 1981 QA-1481 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III kb. H. - Zic:ner Nuclear Power Station Moscou, Ohio 45153 Attention: Mr. F. T. Daniels, Senior Resident Inspector RE: WM. H. ZUDIER NUCLEAR POWER. STATION UNIT I DOCUMENTS REQUESTED FROM MR. P. S. GITTINGS - HJK/QA, W. O. #57300-957, JOB E-5590 Gentlezen: Enclosed is Henry J. Kaiser letter KC-15694-Q, regarding several letters and other correspondence, requested by the NRC from Mr. P. S. Gittings. The Cincinnati. Gas & Electric has reviewed this letter and the referenced correspondence and is now transmitting the package to you per the request in the referenced Henry J. Kaiser letter. If there are any questions, please contact me or Mr. D. J. Schulte. Very truly yours, THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPAhT l f By p MU g H. . SAGER v MANAGER, QUALITY ASSURANCE , ! DJS:ec
- cc: D. Howard P. Kyner -
l J. Watkins E. A. Borgmana l l t M. F. Rulli i I i l i [ . I EG01050472 821116 ' i PDR FOIA DEVINE82-206 PDR. . -
HENR Y J. KAISER COMPA N Y P O boa 201 MC5 Con oM.O 45153 August 14, 1981 KC-15694-Q The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company Wm. H. Zimmer Site P. O. Box 201 Moscow, Ohio 45153 Attention: Mr. H.R. Sager Quality Assurance Manager ccar Sir: i Prior to Mr. Phil G1ttings leaving the Zirmer Site, the NRC requested an interview with him, this interview was in connection with the ongoing 1;RC invastigations that were being conducted over the past year. Thir interview resulted in Mr. Gittings referring to several correspondences that had been transmitted back and foryh between CG&E and l'aiser. The NRC requested that Mr. Phil Gittfags produce these ccrrespondences. 1 am forwarding the refe:ent.e ' correspondences to you for your action and transmittal to the NRC. Ve truly ours, i [ P. Kyner , HJK Site Quality Assurance Manager PRL/pc cc: D. Howard File 1
?
1 l . A RAYMOND INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
e # Date Letter 2-20-74 KC-1760-Q _ 10-14-74 KC-2643-Q 11- 1-74 McMahon to Williams 10-30-74 KD-7 11- 1-74 KC-2754-Q 1-15-75 KD-12 1-30-75 McMahon to Friedrich 2-17-75 , Friedricit to McMahon 3- 4-75 KEF-5 3-18-75 Pandorf to Friedrich 2-21-75 Williams to Pandorf 3-26-75 Friedrich to McMahon 3-31-75 Minutes of CG&E & EEI Meeting 4-11-75 Friedrich to Borgmann j i 4-16-75 Williams to Pandorf 8- 1-75 Friedrich to McMahon 12-26-75 Schwiers to Gray ( 11-30-75 Knox to Williams e l. i
- i
, I i 4
= =~ .-m. .. ..
p_ . - - - - -
- i I
I ' y+p gjeke,-- e!= t.--Nk' d,JI n. THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY M M '- E A -d CINCINN ATt. OHIO 4 5201 Deceinber 26, 1975 KEF-87 CEem Kaiser Engineers, Inc. ' P. O. Box 201 Moscow, Ohio 45153 __ busis --- -4 l V. 6 Attention: Mr. C. C. Gray , }_-fW n_ _. e o I B,-- E$ # RE: WM. H. ZIMMER NUCt'2AR POWER STATION - UNIT I - H. C. Nt:fTING CONTRACT WW w W.0. f57300-902. J03 E-5590 U Gentlemen: qs m Attached is Recomendation for Award - Requisition 7070-269 R-6, which is being returned for rewriting. The attached sheet which was HjE-- e cm the basis for the addition of $74,791.00 included 20% overtime for Y E2 both the lead technician and the concrete technician. Please delete these items from the increase to the contract. Temporary parsonnel t ,.s consisting of three (3) concrete technicians, 8 hours per day for 8 [ ..i eh days per month, was also included. Please delete this from.the
- contract increase since it is our intention to utilize either KEI personnel or else sucolement the requirements for concrete sampling .
with CG&E personnel. , If the above is not clear, I would be happy to discuss it'with , you at your convenience. . . Very truly yours, THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
" m .
\ gy : - .
g Q h(V Dg30$5y 9 W. W. SCHWIERS FIELD PROJECT ENGINEER tr g 3 General Engineering Departmen,t ,
~
- pa --
c.N. - pegmann ' i
. . Van Veen * '
E. C. Pandorf ,
.e g
+ +~ s.
!' 7
, 'f.,
'/- ya/ ,j,hzg.
. c .
1 , .>' KoJ55R suomesas l'g JJ' Fff.' '&n . . , . . .t e t- . g/.. - xAssca cuoeuccas.swe. 4 -t t ll* : .'ll . ..... i)b USH IV7Wri--/lP II
- k. .
g } a..*;. = ,..[, ,g. 7g [7,p Y April 11, 1975 , KC-3449-Q .
'o l /J
'A Mr. E. A. Borgmann, Manager /~
General Engineering Depart =ent y The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
-r' g '
y'",,
,A 139 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 ,. t.c 4
p jy- p,/;, p #, ( v n Attention: E. C. Pandorf, Principal Engineer
Subject:
Inspection of Phase II Piping i Centlemen: , We are in receipt of your memorandum (KEQ-21) dated 2-28 ~5 subject,
" Inspection of Phase II Piping" and we offer the following explanation .
for each item of the Construction /Pipirg Inspection Plan. Pipinc: Field Weld and Corconent Checklist
- 1. CG&E - Requirements of item 1 are to be verified .ind signed off by the construction supervisor.
KEI - Based on NA 4442 of the AS1E Code Section III and Criterion VIII of 10CFR50, assurance must be made that correct material, - part or component is being installed. The Construction Supervisor is not independent of the activity perfor=ing the
/ work (Criterion X), therefore this is the responsibility of the
- Inspector.
- 2. CG&E - Delete item 2. This is a duplication of requirements of the ;
KE Weld 1 Form. , KEI - It is ag' eed r that this call out is .a duplicate of the require-l ments of the KE-Weld 1 Form, but it serves as a reminder to the
- inspector that each of the characteristics must be accounted for on every weld included in the plan. --
e
- 3. CG&E - Visual examina' tion of the root pass is to be accomplished and signed off by the welder foreman. Although item 3 states. l
~
" Stamp of f KE-1 Form", we do not find a requircant_ on the KE-Weld 1 Form for visual exacination of the root pass. >
KEI - The requirement for visual examination of the root pass is covered ' in Block 5 and the general instruction on the reverse side of the , KE-Weld 1 Form defines when and how it is used. Visual examination of the root pass is 'not a requirceent of the ASME Code but it is a
.-r ..n,._ , . -..-,..-,n-.,.n ,..-~.-,n. - - - - . . - , - , _ , , , - - , ,
A
- April 11,19 75
., ' ragd 2 CE requirement of Specification #22A2291. We feel that this call out demonstrates good quality control and will prevent excessive repairs. Since it is optional except on NSS systems it should remain. As for the sign-off by the welder foreman, this would be contrary to the intent of Criterion X.
- 4. CC&E - Delete item 4. Root pass RT is to be used only for stainless steel
. piping installed according to the requirements of GE Specification
- 22A2290, and then only when the I.D. of the weld is inaccessible fcr visual examination. This requirement is adequately covered on the KE-Weld 1 Form.
KE1 - It is agreed that Root Pass RT is adequately covered on the KE-
- Weld 1 Form but you must remember that the Construction / Piping Inspection Plan is a complete plan for the Eigh Pressure Core i
Spray System which will be a complete package to present to the Authorized luspector and the NRC inspector when these systems are turned over for start-up. ,.
- 5. CG&E - Delete item 5. This is a duplication of a requirement of the KE ,
l Weld 1 Form. ,
.KEI - No disagreement. This is a duplication of the requirement of the KE-Weld 1 Form but it also provides status which is also required under Criterion XIV, of 10CTR50.
- 6. CG&E - Retain item 6. This.is to be signed off by the QA Welding Inspector.
KEI - Agree. ,
- 7. CC&E - Delete item 7. Approvals required on the KE-1 Form indicate acceptability and correctness of the form. . ,
- KEI - Approvals are essential because it serves as a check point to see that the specification and code requirements have been included.
The form is prepared by the Construction Welding Engineer and approved by the Quality Assurance Engineer. This is no different than drawing approvals , DDC's , procedures or nonconformances that require approvals.. , KE-Veld 1 Form s General: .
~
CC&E - The headings of columns which now read "QA Stamp" is to be changed j to read " Verified By". >- KE1 - We have no objection of changing the heading but these are proprint forms which we have on hand (5000) and to line out QA Stamp and . reidentify " Verified By" would take quite a few man hours which we feel is unnecessary. When a new order is placed this correction will be made. - 1 . ., .. l - t
j - . " .' April 11, 1975 ~,
. ,. Pcgd 3 ,i
. i
, x. s .
. 1. Cc&E - Item 1 is to be verified and signed off by the weldcrfforeman. N. , ,
~3 -
KEI - Verification by the welder foreman would not meet the. intent'of Criterion X of 10CFR50. .
- 2. "CC&E - Item 2 is to be verified and signed off by the we.ider foreman who can also record the spool mark numbers. , ,
Kb1 - The spool mark nu=bers can be entered on the form by the welder foreman but the verification must be by QA for reasons stated above. ; . 4
- 3. CG&E - Item 3 is to be verified and signed off by the welder; foreman.
KEI - The welder fore =an could sign-off item 3 but the verkfication must be by QA.
\ ~~
- 4. CC&E - Delete item 4. NDE of weld preparation surfaces is required only ~
for materials having a thickness of 2 inches or greater. I KEI - We agree, only those sections 2 in. or greater require NDE but at the present time all the thicknesses have not been identified.
- 5. CG&E - Root pass NDE is to be used only when required by S&I. o GE design documents. Verification by personnel qu'alified to SNT-TC-1A *
. Level II or III is ~ required. -
-u KEI - Agree. We in1;end to use only qualified personnel. ,I l' -
- 6. CC&E - Delete "NDE - Interpass", Acceptance is to be based on NDE of the 1 l completed weld. The welder foreman is to record the interpass f; temperature and sign-off verification. .,
s) KEI - This call-out is optional and is up to the discretion o.f the , Welding Engineer to call it out. As for the recording of the / interpass temperature it can be recorded by the weldar foreman or even the welder but it must be verified by the inspector. , Af te_r a complete review and_ana_l,ysi_s_of yjur c,omments it appears that you do ,, _not fully underiCind the functions or clie ihtent of the Construct' ion Inspection
~
' Plans or tne Kl.~ ITeeld~1'Yorm.
-.---- ~ n . _ __
The Construction Inspection Plans are an integral part of our Quality Assurance Manual (Section 7 - Planning) and contain the minimum rbquirements , to satisfy ASME Code Section III and 10CFR50. It has been used since the , beginning of the Wm. H. Zimmer Project and has provided sufficient control and valusble documentation. This documentation becomes more valuable during the start-up phase. = The KE-Weld 1 Form was developed as a standard form encompassing all the- - essential variables from the various codes, its effectiveness is only as good ( ss the Welding Engineer's input. It also serves as valuable documentation if e ,
% e
- -a-
~**-**4**
,y _ _ _ ,
Page 4
.s properly utilized and ady.inistered. That administration and responsibility can only.be effcetive when manage:d by the Quality Assurance Organisation who understand and appreciate the real reason for initiating, implementing, '
coepiling and storing documentation. - To :nodify or make the changes recoceended would be a complete alteration to our isiioal hnd the philosophy used to develop the QA Program.
~ .
~ '
Very truly yours, , KAISER ENGINEERS, INO. c f.Ldc & W. J. Friedrich Site Quality Assurance Manager WJF:sbe . cc: J. E. Hoffman / bec: D. H. Williams / . V. P. McMahon
- C. C. Gray ,
s t . L 9 9 e e
)
- e t , . .
.. ~ * - . -me,
.k e *
** y t 4 * ,
e . e k e es
- e
* ,9 9
... .a..w-..~ .
uw uts u s i.a....v...... v v... j ; To ' V'. P. McMahon .s q DATE August 1, 1975
. AT, ,0akland f?,A
.g , f f. 9 , .
FROM W. J. Friedrich . comsTo C. C. Gray ._ y
/
D.K. Williams / S
?QM o.z. rs..h 7.'> g. r ' -
AT Hoscow, Ohio
, JOB NO.7070 e .
sunnci QA IllSPECTI0il REQUIREMEflTS FOR THE 6 MotiTH PERIOD #/ SEPTEMBER 1975 THROUGH FEBRUARY 1976 , in April 1975, a request was submitted _f.qr__5__a.ddit'ional insoectors. Tne resuit irr th u reauest was the approval of two f2) mecfanical inspenors wnich were just recently aooeo to the staff. We are still in dire need of inspectors and I am requesting management approval for the addition of the following inspection positions: 1 Mechanical Inspector - September 1975 1 Hechanical Inspector - October 1975 1 Electrical Inspector - September 1975 i 1 Electrical Inspector - October 1975 , (Attaqhments should support't,he above requirements) These additions will bring our total inspection staff to 17. This repres_ ente a ratin_of_ona inenactne for every 51 direc_t craftsmen. By tiemparison this is far less than any nuclear plant being built under 10CFR50. It is also risky busines.s_.to oper. ate _so lean _tt14.t si.ckaejs. Yacation or personnel quitting without timely replacements could seriously jeopardize quality. The concrete schedule shows a decline in November and December at which time we will consider retraining and reassigning the civil inspectors in - the mechanical and electrical areas. Again it is suggested that you consider an additional clerk for the QA Site Documentation Center. This area has been operating rather smooth under the direction of Chuck Makowsky but the demand for retrieving documents has yet to come. As equipment is installed infomation in l regard to limit se'ttings, pressures, Code Data Reports, frequency, I temperature, etc. will be requested and it will take some one full time , to comply. Right now we are getting by with temporary summer help, under the Affirmative Action Program Summer Employment of Youths.
. . t l As you can see, every effort is being made to operate with a minimum work l
force and inspite of the extension of the schedule QA has been able to stay within the original allocated budget. WJF:sbc ' l . Attachments -. ..
yL. - e 4v KAt.5f.Et-? ENG/NEERS KAl$ E R E NGINE ERS. IN C. P.o. sox noi uoscow. oNlo asiss ,..g{,P3. ,,
.< .. ~..l.
October 14, 1974 KC-2643-Q
' ,,.. .' d.' . # .I '
<#l c. '..'
. . s > '.
.... *a , h.
' l..
.\ ~ , '. th
. e, v. *'
Mr.1. A. Borgmann, Manager '
. j ,', , ; .,T Cencral Engineering Department .y" t ~~ i . ', ' ~
The Cincinnati Cas & Electric Co.
. 139 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Attention: E. C. Pandorf, Principal Engineer Subje ct: Request for Additional Quality Assurance Personnel Centlemen:
This memo is written as a. special request for hiring Quality Assurance personnel in accordance with the attached manpower loading requirements. With the advent of the piping installation, structural steel crection, special coating, receipt of valves, installation "of cable trays , wire pulling and terminations, it is absolutely necessary to hire the , inspection personnel to assure the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix B are met. Every effort is being made to comply with the drawings and specifications, codes, and standards with a minimum number of people, but it is becoming virtually impossible to continue working in all the areas with the present , scaff. The Quality Assurance program as written and approved by ASME and AEC was predicated on the attached organization chart. In order to continue the program and maintain the current confidence that the system is sound and adequate, it behooves us to complete the manpower staffing as quickly as possible. Since qualifications of Quality Assurance personnel is always subject to careful scrutiny, sufficient lead time is required in locating experienced or qualified personnel. Therefore, your immediate attention should be given this request. An early response would be greatly . ., appreciated. - Very truly yours, KAISER ENGINEERS INC. W. J. Friedrich
. Site Quality Assurance Manager WJF:sbc . bec: D. R. McSparrin Attachments -
. D. H. Williams cc: W. W. Schwiers V. P. McMahon..
W. B. Wirrav .
- - -- ~ - . - - - - . - _ _ - - - . _ - - - - .
.8 v v I
, / g,V .,
. j ,
_J
.. m e ,
y0 . 8 . 4#
- m U
* . ==
2 g
. . p .
* . . . w e .
. . . e J.1
. ** . w
. ~.
, tel y
- 43
* . 2 8 .
.p * .S.t * .
,, .p. -
.s C y .e .t
* .9 O p. 36 e
88."." d
*6
*P e-
- 6. g,,E94
- t; p
's I9 9.e e.**P*
- e. 8. P. *8%
. ~
Pra w=sur . .. .. .
..- . .a.. :* ....u.o .u e. >a.
,f
.* a . ~ .e . ~ v s:. -
e.
*8 ,. . ... .c .,
, . . A8 *8 * (
J, .<; o g _- - H<
*~
.: .;,;4 . .J * = = d * *
!C%
\
- . . Dm .
< - Om g . .
,. W" .
. . g 6M g *.*'E *
- g .n.
a 69 *. 3 f.a 8C M.d M 4.8 .
. er C.
> .a .s >
n
,,a e s w . 3 ;*;
l
-= r.
w a6
>: w w
- a. . ,
w e.. . X. . e. b 4 % s.uman .
. p. up .r.
! .E *
- r. e .=. .
I . gy g* - - _ ' =.r .4 C' *.. . m 2 **FI ' . . w . i
*s'. * .
s.e,
. .g i I .
- mg .
m
* -- 3 .;
u n
= 'd,
.. s.
*. .# o 4e.J .* . ,
. . es ta P. .
- er.
P
- l
.c. .h-F..,,.g I
. Ieia4 9
.p .=r
. gg::::::g A
we e i g .a 69 . t .
- _e .e .r.
eg ;* . I- . . [ . w , . .
*. .s .C .- b3
.e .E. --
es c'. ** . ,,
.,f'*. i ..
3 .Nw ma .at'* . *e 4 at . *
. . .e w. d . . .
-p er . .* e .s w .
. . . . C P. 3 g
'9** E .f. * .
=2 =. - D M .C. e.E g, w s
.rc .,
- . . - - . _ . ,:; *.: g au> .
. f E* O.
w .e . . *
.a. no
- a.e -
". A m.
&. y ..w ww y P . .- e e . ,
- w v sea cia 2ENJI5 i .
8 M 3 Fl$ Q*
- w~-- .
?.. . .
a . .
.c w - . . i .- y , v. .
6 : = .,. . . .
- d. b g gr. P.
- l r m:xm
- 1' p m . . . .. . :
~... .*~* .
- r. . t. t,
.o
. 5.,
s .
. 3 x w. ,.
. g A *
'. ,. .. e
.. . s s.=. t
.a . u . . . .
t
* . l
=
m "-sme=m :--= =- -c aw,. . ~ .
. f I
ll
. w.g
. . *. 4 * -
= ,
. , - = .i. .L, e . . -
. . s.
a
=
~
se i a ,. . e.t"
.o.
o u.
.a .
.a.,
u l
. m d.*-
si bs: 37.
#a .. { . ns .* U. . *} . N .v .s .
e O ! o = ... . .
.. u .
, i = . : y o. u.. -
3: . E ..
- g .u. . ..- e
. < g T c : ..
.. g 9
e . .
- , 4
* - - - - - + - - -. .- .. .
l . . - - - . - - - , ,--
% g
. , INTER Fo .. 3;,-' iOR ANDUM D.H. "' lia=s
# 4 our Novc=ber 1, 197h to ' ,
et T$is *r ""['t pi .,,h
'.all - Suite 20 ( i9,.v u a ' raew V.P. -Mahon ,
_ Ny - 1874 " L4 comrs to W.J. Friedrich . 1'
\
gtsti ENOM 1 at Eniser Man - Suite 220 D.U V'N*J'S
, ses no.
sus;ter Personnel for Zi=ner Pro;iect. Attached are copies of letters fro = W. J. Friedrich to E. Pandorf of C.G.E. and fro = W. Dickhoner of C.G.E. to W.J. Friedrich. I believe that after reading the= you can understand =y concern and proble=. Bill Friedrich advises =e that prior to sending his letter to Ed Pandorf he sub-2:itted personnel requisitions to Bill Murray, the C.G.E. Site Representative for concurrence and that Bill was not sure of what he was supposed to do with the=, consequently no action was taken. Bill Friedrich is now taking another tack, he is preparing two requisitions for submittal to E. Bors= ann for his concurrence. Needless to say, we cannot conduct a proper Q.A. progra= without the necessary manpower. Our workload in the =echanical and electrical area vill start to build up in a short ti=e. Recruiting efforts should co=::;ence so that the needed '~ person-nel will be available. I believe that Bill Friedrich has been very careful to bring people on board as needed, and has de=custrated a capability to utilize his personnel effectively. I ask your help in this proble= by reviewing this with Bill Friedrich while at Zi=::cr and taking the necessary action with C.G.E. =anage=ent. ,
.o*
e e g w. o, m 6 e 6 ,
, r- :
g i VIM:gw . .. _ . u
DATE to.
- > ' ] [, ,,l,- , f*~.l 70 g?:
arch 31,1975 H. DiC K'N O N E n W.W. SOfMIERS @ SusJECf. W Y. H. Z l M fA E R N U d'L' t A R power station uNir i y, V A N C I L S E . J. R. S C H O TT O rt. DERIN0li AUS @ ,,D,.,RJ C S P A_R R f,(b * ,
@ H.C. DRINKM ANN @
- .. D I R R ,
SHEU M J. VA N VE E N @ R.J. R E I M A N b ' ~ JO B'N 9. $.',85 90 ' w.o. 57300-957 FILE N
- . PANDORF (5) @ H.E. CR All
' th t, -
,4,8cppund S'W.J. FRIEDRICHlf)I' O O .
#g / g . ,-
O CEN. FILE @, ,
,[- '
.j ,' ', , d[l
- ,o ,
S , whiUTES OF JOD 7 CC&E KEI [At t oched . Dunder.e,oroi.cov., ' ,, , .,.'p'ri1rf AssuRAtt:E stTItta
' EIJ1UARI 28, 1975 Items fisted as f ollows, Bills of material ,
OConi.iobvioiioa. u.su - 4-
'aou'c I-7 e '" * "
V DNW (?) M OCoairocis . ct. 9 ODrowing reprocuellons RJW Instru: tion shoals .. OPermits ' zo v', Douaiiia. . [e*,,- DReports To: CSpecifloations *
'WE
. y, , ,
OWork Orders es n , QMinutes of rneeling 'tce- .' '- ' O . 3C'G. cr e t.< M' qi- .
-
- _cLa s
- m,u whleh over
( , .
- ', ,7,'.
c .' O Approv.s for con.irociion c: Dapproved for record .
- c. twa n ,
Approved on noted Woo I 04: < > < u . .i .d _ For your use '- '
@For your review .
l 0 .
" 'o 81 oa'.: . - -
Dee os. for ord 7our co==.ai. or .ioi maai of "ao co==.a' Ploose return the number of copies noted below . corrected for t' oval O A
\. V for record ,
03i .1,bu)lo,ygg , Q ,e.,' _ , . " - z* . t.s.
* 'A Qp ,Q~
l
- Remarkst -
gJ c a
- u* ~. W '
D,r" R.g @n j")" . ;,. 1 4 , I"
, g g.i $.9'* p.y, .
' 6.; ' $g(1wa
[.e
- , p, j - - . . .
m QUALITY ASSURANCE f. STANDARDS SECTION e GE!1ERAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Minutes of Joint CG&E - KEI OA Meeting at Wm. H. Zimmer on February 28, 1975 , Attendance:
. CG&E KEI E. C. Pandorf W. J.. Friedrich R. P. Ehas M. G. Franchuk .
J. H. Hoffman M. R. Gandert W. W. Schwiers H. R. Good
.J . F. Weissenberg -V. C. Griffin
- R. L. Wood W. J. Kacer
- C. M. Makowsky C. A. Smith Mr. Pandorf opened the meeting by. reading the announcement of W. W. Schwiers replacing W. B. Murray as Field Project Engineer effective March 17, 1975. As of the date of this meeting, a replacement for Mr. Schwiers had not been designated. -
Mr. Pandorf announced that the semi-annual manage-ment audit of'the OA Program was scheduled for March 10 and
- 11. This audit will be conducted by Mr. C. W. Beringhaus.
Following is a summary of the discussion topics a.s outlined in the published agenda: ,
- 1. Follow-up on Items from January 17, 1975 Meeting KEI has been submitting Construction Inspection Plans for CG&E review. CG&E has not as yet commented to KEI on all of the CIPs transmitted.
- 2. KEI Warehouse Receiving Procedure -
~ -
This item will be held for discussion at a later date. .,
- 3. Procedure for Outside Storage of Piping Materi_als This was also held for action at a later date.
4.. Inspection Tolerances for Rebar Installation J. H. Hoffman and M. R. Gandert will work on this. DDCs will be written where necessary. . .n _
m -
- 5. .
Control of ECI Sketches
. Mr. Pandorf stated that efforts must be made to reduce the number of drawings and sketches. It is KEI's position that construction aids are not design drawings and do not have to be submitted to S&L for approval. Construction
. Aids are initiated in the field to consolidate information needed by the crafts to assist them in performing their job. All construction aids must be used for the purpose intended. The purpose is clearly defined above the original title block. It is the responsibility of supervision for controlling the construction aids and seeing that the crafts use them for their intended purpose. KEI will inspect to the Construction Inspection Plan which will reference the latest S&L approved drawing. -
Since construction needs sketches and will use sketches, inspection will only use them as reference drawings and final inspection will be performed to the latest released - S&L drawing. In fact, all construction aids will carry the stamp, "This is a KEI sketch, use only for purpose noted above. Not to be used for final inspection". l This will be kept as an item which requires further review. [
- 6. Nonconforming Material Control .
l This agenda item was generated as a resu'lt o,f the return of the Okonite cable to the manufacturcr without GA relense. This was an instance of violation of existing pr'ocedure and no new procedures appear to be needed at this time.
- 7. KEI OA Audits - Increasing Effectiveness of Follow-Up It was agreed that future KEI audits will include a review of corrective action on the status of corrective action from previous audits.
- 8. ' Issue of Bristol Steel Drawings for Erection Purposes W. W. Schwiers stated that Bristol drawings should be handled like any other vendor drawings and should not be issued from the Configuration Control Center. KEI position is that all ,
erection drawings used on the jobsite should be registered and issued from the Configuration Control Center because it -
~
gives QA the proper control and assurance that only the latest released drawing will be used in the ficid. It is y virtually impossible to control without it. This would apply
, to Waldinger (HVAC contractor) and any other subcontractor -
l : coming on to the site. j. l This item was' held open for further study. [ l . . ; l l ,. . . . , 1 . e
-y-- . -. y-,--- - - - - , - r,-. , . , , - - - - - - , ,m. ._m.. - - - _ - - - - . - - - - - ---.,.---.4__--.
., .8 ,
t 9.- Independent Inspection of I:ristol Erection Procedures . f . KEI will inspect bolting operations as required by the S&L Specification.
- 10. . Subcontractor Personnel Oualifications M. R. Good stated that the NDE personnel qualifications were on file. All Nutting inspection personnel have submitted resumes including qualifications. These are on file in the OA documentation center. Although it is not a requirement unless specified in the contract, KEI will evaluate subcontract QA personnel assigned to the
- jobsite.
l . ! 11. FinalResolution of Coating nequirements Including Inspector
. J. H. Hoffman will again conduct an audit to review all the -
documentation available in the Site Document Center and determine whether it is satisfactory relative to agreements and statements made to J. Sutton of URC. KEI has one outstanding NR #E-140 on the downcomers which should be inspected after touch-up is complete. M. Franchuk will assist J. Hoffman on additional information. ! 12. Drawing Control:
- a. Retrieval vs. Destroy Method
- R. Ehas suggested a retrieval accounting system be used instead of the destroy action method. Ile stated l that it would be a simple matter for the recipient of new drawings to return the old drawings on the same acknowledgement form with any notation for keeping
" void" drawings. No check or verification would be required. W. W. Schwiers will write a memo to J. Billings
~
requesting this change. b4 Field Initiated Sketches Isome'trics will be used by pipefitters but will not be' used for inspection unless they are signed off by S&L ; as design documents. l ,
- 13. Classification of various Service Water Structures .
. F The letter (W. W. Schwiers to E. C. Pandorf dated April 26, j 1974) requesting classification of various service water j
, structures was never answered. E. C. Pandorf requested i l J. Hof fman to follow --up and get a reply from S&L.
I 1
+
1 - 1 . e . ,
, . . , , 3
.c
_4_ 14 .- Cancellation of DDN's for Hon-Essential Equipment W. W. Schwiers has been sinning off on an individual case basis where needed to release equipment for installation.
.This practice will be continued.
- 15. Vendor Evaluation / Approval of Suppliers for Class I Materials KEI will continue to submit requests to perform vendor evaluations until further direction is given.
16. Training Informal training sessions are held with KEI inspectors as well as subcontracted inspection personnel. Only the subject matter and the attendees are recorded. R. E.has recommended a training outline be prepared prior to a training session. This will be considered for any future training. E. C. Pandorf cautioned KEI not to go overboard on traininc and to use tne inclement weatner tor - sucr. actigiay. It was suggested that all QA Engineers, KEI and CG&E, be involved in developing training programs.
- 17. Inspection Personnel Requirements 1 R. Ehas estimated that it would take 20 ' inspectors for the f electrical effort but these people would not necessarily be highly skilled. They could be trained with a minimum effort to do a satisfactory job. It was also mentioned that maybe CG&E operation personnel could be utilized to perform the electrical inspection. Ray Good said that the welding inspection requirements for pipingHe to also meetsaid the that, ASME Code would take at least 12 people.
at least one additional man would be required to read the film. E. C. Pandorf proposed using a Conam inspector to perform the work if the work load became too great. That certainly would be considered by KEI if and when the time comes. Structural Steel Bolting will require one inspector full time to witness the torquing,of 10% of the bolts in each joint or a minimum of two bolts per joint. This work ' must be done by someone other than the erector. It has been dete.rmined that the KEI QA operates as an independent agen y . and can perform this work when required. . ee-
.c ;
$f ', - ,.
j, !
. p'. C. Pandorf k
f/ 6
.~-...- ,
g7.[,' , .
~~.* ,
F7 wen: w. r
.:' -~ s w rg'n # g"-
g: J -' THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
' CINCINNATI OHlo d!.201 a-
. October 30, 1974 KEs-7
.:;%?'!:".*."!? .
Mr. D. R. McSparrin Kaiser Engineers, Inc. ,
/ ,,,
P.O. Box 201 i Moscow, Ohio 45153 RE: WM. H. 25MMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION - REQUEST TOR ADDITIONAL INSPECTION PERSONNEL W.O. 57300-957, JOB E-5590
Dear Mr. McSparrin:
This is in response to your letter, KC-2643-Q, dated October 14, *
- i. 1974.
As you are aware, we are making every effort to maintain the minimum labor force on all projects, consistent with acceptable levels of , supervision, craft labor, and inspection of the work. We have reviewed your request for authority to build up your l inspection forces and it appears to us that there is no justification for increasing the current staff strength, based on the following considerations: i
- 1. The Personnel Schedule dated 6/15/73, attached to your letter, shows .
l 32 persons projected as being required in QA as of October,1974, , rising to a ma>dmum of 35 in June,1975, compared to a total of 25 now
- employed. This schedule was based on a project completion date of ,
mid-1977, which has since been significantly extended. 2.' Certain sub::entractors such as CB&I and Bristol have the responsibility for first-line inspection spelled out in the specifications for their work. KEI is responsible for maintaining surveillance to assure that .. those inspections are accomplished, but KEI must not relieve the sub-l - contractors o~f their inspection responsibilities or duplicate the sub- : contractors' inspection efforts. !
- 3. Much of the concrete inspection work has been transferred to Nutting, !
which was not anticipated at the time the Personnel Sche'dule was !
- f=
developed. *
.:c., . r e*M '. i-
"A *A ..l
[5 - -h s*-
%.Q?nd'n % l ,
% . m Q 6 A L K_ ., y il s a ... . MM. a;,u. .
..p
'[ ' % /
I
.To: Mr. D. R. McSparrin October 30, 1974 -
Kaiser Engineers, Inc. _ Re: Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station - Pago #2 Roquest for Additional Inspection Personnel W.O. 57300-957, Job E-5590
- 4. If certain short-duration inspection assignments are required, these can be filled on a temocrarv basis by outside specialty contractors such as Nutting, Magnaflux, or others.
- 5. With the supervisory assistance of GE-NED, GE-16SE, Reactor Controls, and perhaps others which were not contemplated in the Personnel Schedule, the KEI insoection function should be sublict to some degree of reduction below the numbers showr. In the schedule.
_On the basin of the forenoine mwe are unwilling tetaccede to your request for new hirino at thf s time. Snoulo In:ilvacual arcas of obvious We5kness in Anspection capability become evident, they will Le considered on a case-by-case basis. Very intly yours, TbE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
. / 4Wh ee.H l . m W. H. Dickhoner -
~~
?
ECP: dew .
. oc: E. A. Borgmann
~
.: . ": ";.?J""Te,s .
- w. o .e wwh .
;.i E. C. Tandorf Qog.Q.T.% u k . .
p.. .
~
. g.ma sha -
, '.;u. c 'b
~ m s%&
i . c.,y ~, E .{* ; . l *l.'.% .#
&. N.
\@ff ~0 -
= '
ls ;! s<& p& *
.i - -
\ . :.r .
* , .,...8 4* . . .
- e. .
g.. ... . - : t. . . . . .{
KAISER ENGINEERS
, 'g D
waista cunewcces. iwe 'E w o. eox 3oi , ,. i ,7.',h uoscow. owie 4 sis 3 f 3, ,. .,.;,y,. 4 g 7 *1 1
- November 1,1974
\
t @l~ 0 #5 974 ~
'l KC-2754-Q
'. Y .. g;S.*D5 4 M .
Mr. E. A. Borgmann, Manager . General Engineering Department The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. 139 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Attention: E. C. Pandorf, Principal Engineer
Subject:
Painting Inspector / Documentation Clerk Centlemen: Attached hereto is a requisition for a Civil Inspector and a documentation clerk for your review and approval. The need for an, additional inspector is based on the specification requirements for painting. It would be desirable to hire a Civil Inspector with experience in painting, but since Carboline Co. will be conducting on-site training, such prior experience
- is not mandatory. .
The documentation clerk is required at this time to accomplish the record keeping required on re-steel heats, concrete pours, fabrication materials - and weld filler materials. This will relieve our engineering assistant from these duties and allow him to concentrate his efforts on assembly of the QA documentation in preparation for filing. Very truly yours, W. J. Friedrich -, i
. Site Quality Assurance Manager L
WJF:shc * * '" Attachment
- cc: W. W. Schwiers .
. bec: D. R. McSparrin D.'N. Williams * .
V. P. McMahon , S ,
. e e
m m-
' S I .
iflill'ailTICE,f'f'Rf*A January 30,1975 W.J', Iriedrich ; ,A* Mosco*t, Chio %' N* c (*]*.T.d'#'YS wt .. V.'). Mc!.'ahon .
.1 =
/ J An 11375 ** . U [.
~
- r -
D.H. Williams T4 7. .**.g* ...
%. p A F2! - #220
/A ,
,1. .. . . . a . - m -
'b ' . . 7070
- - Efficiency of CA operations LGTh 'f~ t/, D V Attached are a letter from E. Borg . ann and a me=o frem D.H. Williams on the subject of cost conse'iousness on the Zimmer project.
As we discussed on the telephone, you are going to review your activ-itiesindepthwiththeobjectiveof\'eterminingifthereareactiv-ities which can be streamlined, si=plified, or possibly, in some cases,
~
deleted, which would not have a neghtive 1:: pact on the conduct of your quality assurance program, -but would result in a more efficient opern-tion. The results of your review, includir:g activities reviewed, ac-tions thhen or to be taken, you will tre.nsmit in a me=o to me by Feb. 7 t
~
* - ~
i . r 1 j - l
- Attachment .
VTM:gw .; 1
- 1
. .e Y
I 1 l *
- g. FO
bd . jy),g.jylt!! Allei j i-J . ,
--*=%
THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COh!PANY - T Pe
.cinem%ri omo .szo, p y January 15, 1975 Q . ...e- y - n KEB-12
': C .! s 'c i.V g Kaiser Engineers, Inc. C.; JAU 201975 > _-
D ym s:A EWraIfr.5 IO - Kaiser Center 300 Lakeside Drive D.H. M W1'.5 Oakland, California '94666 % Y
- Ig Attention: Mr. D. H. Williams
. RE: WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION -
UNIT 1 - MANPOWER AUTHORIZATION
- W.O. 57300-902, IOB E-5590
- Gentlemen:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter KC-2903-C dated December 9,1974 concerning your current six month forecast of additional required non-manual personnel. In that letter, you requested 23 additional non-man,ual_ personnel and attached a description of each requireo category of~ persons with reasons why they were being requested.,I discussed this with'you in some detail at the Wm. H. Zimmer Site on January 8,1975. At that time I agreed to your proceeding with adding five people to your staff with the possibility of adding a sixth man in the electrical area sometime in i the middle of 1975, if the work load so warrants. The persons authorized . to be hired are as follows: ,
~
1 - Welding Engineer ; I - HVAC Engineer 2 - Piping Engineers 1 - Piping Draftsman . The sixth man considered for possible hiring in June of 1975, should the work load warrant, is as follows: . . 1 - Area Superintendent for Foothill Electric Corporation .- - I T I A systems engine'er with start-up experience was also discussed i with no decision reached other than, if an extremely good prospect turns l r I
"r a p, - _ __
-- g
''"s = =
-wv - - - - -
t l ;
. l
- 1
=
January 15, 1975 - l To: Kaiser Engineers, Inc. Page #2 Re: Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 - Manpower Authorization W.O. 57300-902, Tob E-5590 . l up, the situation will be reviewed to determine whether he should be added to your staff. The need for an architectural engineer was also reviewed in some detail and I indicated that in my estimation further i I additions to the structural staff at this stage of the project cannot be justified. . I believe the above accurately summarizes our discussion on January 8 but I would like to supplement our personal discussion with some thoughts in general on the management of this project. , I, personally, as well as other members of the General Engineer-ing Department cannot completely judge your needs for either non-manual or craft personnel in the field. Compared to our own force, however, there is still the general impression within our organization that Kaiser Engineers should have sufficient non-manual people in the field, particularly with the above authorized additions, to adequately supervise and direct the l l work. Perhaps assignments are not optimumly distributed but the quantity of personng_pfms_ademmte to us. As I indicated verbally to you, it must be impressed upon your staff that the Owners of this project _cannot issue a blank check with regards to personnel, particularly with the financial situation being what , it is today. We both should attempt to utilize each man to his capacity and attempt to do the job with what we have at our disposal until it becomes apparent that physical progress is being affected. In instances where it is evident that the project can be expedited through staff changes, the first order should be to investigate the competence of the Section or person involved rather than to immediately insist on additional people.
, _Quality rather than quantity is the real answer on a project of this nature-l and you should exhort your statrto attain the highest effort possible before .,
instituting complaints about being overworked. 1 There is no need for my dwelling csn the current situation in " the utility industry; there are trying times ahead of us.and if Kaiser i Engineers expects to remain a significant factor on this project, it will have to adapt to the situation now facing us which is one of-austerity and hard work. I f e f. e
s ' t . . To: Kaiser Engineers, Inc. January 15, 1975 Re: Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station - Page #3 Unit 1 - Manpower Authorization W.O. 57300-902, Tob E-5590 It is difficult to write a letter such as this which attempts constructively to go beyond mere complaining about overhead costs. My intent is to get you and your field management to impress upon every-one connected with this job that there is a ff nite limit to our financial resources and the faster they are dwindTed away, the more likely it
-betromes that this and future nuclear projects are in danger of falling by the wayside.
It is dangerous for us to tamper with a constructor's responsibility by trying to assess and decide the proper level of his manpower. However, the level of expenditures attained to date o_n this project makes it mandatory to tichten the control rein _s ,t nocefullviwithout jeopardizing your efforts. As I mentioned earlier, I .am trying to establish a project philosophy and trying to inject some sense of cost concern and project spirit into every employee on the staff of Kaiser Engineers. I believe that I have set forth my concerns on your manpower situation and trust that this will be taken as constructive comments on my part. You have many dedicated and competent people on your staff; it becomes your task to utilize them fully and to minimize the non-essential , addition of further overhead to this project. I trust that with this spirit, we can proceed with prosecuting this job to a conclusion that will satisfy
. ~ both the Owners and Kaiser Engineers.
Very truly yours, THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY , [ "*
"~
By, E. A. BORGMANN, Manager , General Engineering Department EAB: dew cc: D. R. McSparrin , , [ l d e.
~
?y-
- ~
.cr To V. P. McMahon INTERfFF(CE MEMORANDUM ~ 17,1975 'pf
/[,q.nlyup$ \
- DATE February AT - 0.akland /.' - A f';'(, , . :,\, 3
#4
, f. ,9.p;{
, ," 9 FROM W. J. Friedrich ,
p '* , ~'. - coPits To D. R. McSparrin "d , . 5 N ,y$ AT Hoscow, Ohio
,[\ .
JOS NO. 7070 sus;Ec7 EFFICIENCY OF QA OPERATIONS (Reference letter dated 1-30-75 V. P. McMahon to W. J. Friedrich same subject) i I have reviewed the QA activities on the Zimmer project with the objective of streamlining, simplifying or deleting certain activities and present the following results:
.l . The Quality Engineering Section has a complete complement, one engineer'in each discipline. It was originally planned that one additional Mechanical Quality Engineer would be required for the Euclear Steam Supply System but after CG&E signed the contract with the I&SE department of General Electric this requirceent has been dropped. .
- 2. There is still a need for an additional clerk in the Site Documentation Control Center because CG&E'has not made any arrange-ments with their suppliers to retain the documentation or radiographs for the life of the plant. Because of this, we receive dribbles and dabs of documentation which takes special care in sorting and filing.
l At the present time we are utilizing co-op students and getting by.
- 3. Receiving Inspection is always a busy spot. We have two inspectors working with Vic Griffin. This is not near enous:h, but we have been .
able to keep things moving. Most people are impressed with the ware-house operation, but it would not be that good if it were not for the conscientious people assigned. That includes warehouse people like - Fred Norton, Bill Ferree and Maurice Davis. Gene Knox and Art Billy were certainly impressed by the warehouse operation.
- 4. Civil inspection constitutes the majority of our work. There are six (6) civil inspectors including (Peter Perry) the Lead Civil ,
inspector and one (1) co-op student. These inspectors are responsible for the back-fill program, rebar placement, cadwelding, form erection, cleanliness, concrete pours and final inspection. Although we apply _ our requirements straight across the board we concentrate on Class 1 ~ l or Essential structures with maximum effort and minimize our efforts on Class Il or Nonessential. This fulfills our responsibility to ,
. management that the plant is being built in accordance with_ the '
Sargent & Lundy design. ,
},
t f
- 5. The mechanical inspection is slowly rounding out. With Luke Sunwoo coming on board we have four (4) inspectors who are responsible for the calibration lab, the pipe shop, the ironworkers shop, F&S Machine Shop, fabrication of the sacrificial shield, installation of pipe and e
't Af4194
. - - ~
' V. P.1:c!!ahon Tcb'ruary 17, 1975 -
Paga 2 ,
. embedments. They maintain the cidair building, perform NDE, and keep the stick file (drawings) up to date. We have been able to keep up with the current rate of work, but it is obvious that (4) four mechanical or welding inspectors cannot cover the work of 150 or 200 welders. I will continue to recuest enre inenectors in this discipline until I ha~ve a suiticient number to inspect,the work satisfactorily.
- 6. Thank God the electrical portion of the work has not started because we have only (1) one daenector. He performs the inspection on cable tray installation, conduit and wiring. This should build up to a 5 or 6 man inspection crew before the job ends. Hopefully, I will be able to get these men when the. civil work is completed reducing the ~
need for civil inspectors. .
- 7. QA subcontractors have been held to a minimum. MIL has only one man on the job and he is kept busy qualifying velders via radiography and the day to day production. The responsibility for scheduling and over-all performance has been absorbed by Construction. QA is only respon-sible for the quality. -
- 8. Nutting is working with a minimum crew. Currently they have five (5) temporary men assigned to the job. The QA Civil Engineer reviews 5 periodically the need for the number of men for the job and based on his judgement, this number is increased or decreased.
This analysis represents the minimum effort required by the codes and . standards, the AEC, and that necessary to provide the control needed by Kaiser Engineers. Needless to say, we cannot conduct a proper OA procram without the necessary manpower. Our workload in the mechanical area is-
~
Just beginning and the electrical area has not really started. Class 1 or Essential Painting is scheduled without any inspection coverage. It may become necessary to inspect the painting by Carboline or some other outside consultant, af ter the fact. Ckdy one (1) inspector has been added to the_s,taff since April of_1974, so A can safely say that I have been very careful to bring people on board as needed. Based on the analysis as presented, I solicit your help in getting the personnel necessaqr to do a satisfactory job. ,
, ,. ,. i HJF:sbc -
e -
, o .
, e
- e 4
. . - i
- e e e
. . - -e e -
0 ' jf I
,* n- '. *- .
mr
,l . ._.__ _ __ ., ; ,i ; :
., ,,, -.. ._r
.TIIE CINCINNNEI GAS & ELECTRIC S
COMP, . r- h N Y ' ' ' . ;;d. .:' E' t"_T-EE E'?, - Ii *ll \ _\'.I .I\s'
- e. t ' e,u:,uns, o,.so a n on 1
>l . - .- March'4 1975;w g ,,f : [
gl N----- r\- > .-ff?l-; ; & -f. ,j o.i~.q ,,/ +c-x - Kaiser Engineers, Inc. .'o"' i- W
, tl.l!1:;,,!, .- - s. c] ' .i d'f j:$ jha S .w $;-
P. O. Box 201 'i f',E,i],$sh'i* ~ ~~
.~ Y ,. 'i "h';, #'.'.h44 , ,,, ,[.
,C ',M
~ "
45153 Moscow, Ohio 3
- 0. .y, l
Attention: RE: Mr. D. R. McSparrin WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION hM / UNIT 1 - PAINTING AND COATING INSPECTION W.O. #57321, ITEM #3860, JO3 E-5590 Gentlemen: ! We have reviewed your proposed requisition asking to hire a full time inspector from an independent agency for our , i painting and coating work, and have made the following decisions:
- 1. In Service Level 2 areas, the painting forecen and the craft superintendent can perform the necessary~ inspection.
The responsibility for inspection in Level 2 areas can be '1 excluded from your Quality Control and Quality Assurance' Sections.
- 2. In Service Level 1 areas, continuous insoection of th[
, field coating work will be required. Th'is inspectionf should be by a KEI inspector. Kenneth Tator Associat as p[ #
should be engaged to conduct a training session as outlined in their letter of December 16, 1974. KEI should have three or four inspectors qualified under this training program. k[ ' We believe that the above inspection procedure will M meet NRC requirements and also insure good workmanship in the
- application of our coatings. We realize that S&L Specification '
11-2174, Sections 5-5 and 9-4 will have to be revised to conform ' with the above procedure and, by a copy of this letter, request that,Sargent & Lundy make the necessary revision.
/f ;
< ,'. .. .,'., Very truly yours, f
/ ,. , ' . , ,
,g T!!E NCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY y v
.1 , c , 3,
! /
,,4l,, f ' . ,i. 6 I,., ,
/ 1/ #r i
i n '.- g... O .'
,! By R.JrV EEN W >
, . \.' ,
'. Principal Structural Engineer 6 9 UC"_cral, ngineering Department A :L cc: Y gG.,..Hegener E. C. Panc orf .
E. A. Dorgmann ,R. J. van Veen u a u... m, . 9
my.g . .
.p. - .
.;~
id.- - 1 tv
. ). a.
{71:m . -y s.r i ..v.. g1 y.Tp~2*w W .4.
.g:2
..;M. .
f- THE C. INCINNATI GAS &, ELECTR1C CO.MPANY
.. . Er Ed".~$'d 4:.d cenr.swwci, o:460 **ttm
& N z _. n" Harch 18, 1975 -- "' - -
. E [ o p s % 3. P:te: trich .
,g,~T6 .g/o.:5. P. lier.shon Of gp tg ,
,.'m
. From: w.p., A. =1th
. 4~ v, . -.
Mr. W. J. Friedrich Iaiser Engineers, Inc. .
- ,.b -
P. O. Box 2 01 , Page I V 5 - p
" ~
y..;..... ,Noscow, Ohi.o..45153 ..
, ;a . . .
~ , . : .. , . . s . + 0.- .
s.
. RE:,1M.. E. ZHMER NUCL*M POifEP, PIJuiT . , ,, .,,.y;, s. 6..
S
.b;~ ,
, QUALITY ASSURANCE, .
~
W.O. 57300-960, J03 E-5590 , q P .,,.
, f: ,s .
Daar Mr. Friedrich: .
, , , - }-[p. p < -
- Ac we" discussed at a menting in your office on March ll,
, 1975, I am convinced that the K3I QA/QC- organization on the , . ,
. . Mm. H. Zirraar Project cannot trovide for optim.rn utilication o'f
. the Eneineers tF.is -~
letter a uandusa; Insnectors in the orcanication. . In writin.g to su=: rize my impress 2ons of th;s veshnesses which I feel exist, and the correceive actions which appear appropreare. 2na..i. letter is not a directica. . It .is - written to set forth my thcughts and to invite consideration and coments by you and by anyone else who wishes to mak.e a contributi.on. .. .
. ..,.:..y..y.. .
- 1. Inspection . . :.% P5 ' :
. s.: . r In the original concept of contracting with KEI as the
,' constructor for the project, many of us assumed that '1,:El would' perform direct craft supervision without engaging subcontractors for most of the erection and installation work. Under tilat
.. . .. concept KEI would be required to provide the .first.levej...of .
inspectica for routine and continuing surveill'ance, which I define as a Quality Centrol function. The XII inspection section was - developed to provide this capability, and was placed under tha- ' supervision of thp Site QA Hanager. ,
. ,i. 1 -
.7.. _ ..
.2. Direct Construct.icn N ".
i EEI is parforming concrete placement, piping erection; -
- and electrical construction directly, and is responsible 'for the
, inspection and QC in these activities. Eccause of the caanitude '
~[ f of tha work FEI has engaged specialists such as Nutting and I'
.j ,.
Magnaflux to assist in the inspection vork. .
.e y ) ,
- .9. /,. : -
.g . . . .
...m.m..- -
- A* . . , - ,
.u -
. " rg:
C.h. * '
}:aiser Engineers, Inc. .
l '.l .': , Em. H. Zinner IJaclear Power Plant ! f,.T , Re: .. , Page 2 r .,: Ouality Assurance C -
. , s.. .
, (, . * '? '. ..' , . ;.l.* .,.
-}
- 3. Subcontractors' .
. /. -
'Each subcontractor who is involved in any field' work '
, which is categorized as Essential, Class I, Safety Related,'or ASME Section III by the designer is required to supply & QA Manual and to be capable of fulfilling his cc..mitments for supplying inspectipn personnel and OA doc.:nentatio- 5.:.i,;:n..f.,
e :. . .:2 <:ch . .
.-s .
As it has worked cut CB&I came on the job sith 'ai. good QA program and perfor=2d as described abova on .the ccatainment
~ liner installation under 12! QA surveillance and: periodic +
auditing. On the other end of the spectrum, Inland-Rycrsen/Elinger
~
appear to have left the~ inspection of rebar picccnent nestly up .
, to EEI inspectors. KEI should have required the' subcontractor to do his job, but at this late date it would p,robably:..ba unwise to attempt a change. :- ... .
.. ',g,L
.y,
. i % ;a.g ; .gn ,
' As new subcontracters start work en the'-%bnsuch 'as' Reactor Centrols on reactor corponent installationJ 3ristol on structural steel, and Waldinger/nB on h'JAC, they are required to fulfill their CC obligations under KE! QA surveill'ancei..
...n... w ./.*'..
1
- 4. Instructions, Procedures, and Plans , . '.M.' 'M. .
i
. ..- e. mF.a w .
. . .:.k.
KEI seems to have ,adepted an overly ce=oledianer' wofk s'a .., which has required too r.uch t o.2 and effort ty the -
- A Engineers. If these activitics centinue in the' future, the '
. CA Engineers will not be able to fcnction effectively on their pri=ary duties of surveillance and auditing. - ,,.;;; . , ./ . . *
, . w..,.. .. . . -
So:ne of the' paper work on which the QA Engineers 'have . obviously spent time is described belev: . ... . .-.- ... .. e p. y ;:.
.s..
- ~..<.....m., .
. s.
~
- a. CAP - The KEI OA Manual is r.ade .up of. Quality -
, Assurance Procedures, with cne responsive to each F ,
. , of the IB QA criteria in 10CFR50 appendix 3. Ynese . ,
are cen:plete except for occasional. updating,. and. are - i not subjact to criticism - . ' ' . " .;.....** .- . [.
...- i
- b. OACHI -.'This is a " Quality Assurance - Construction -
- a Methods Instruction." ':'ha index shows that' 33 of * >
t
} ,,.'; 7, these have b5en prepared dealing?witli.a variety of
;; ,* subjects such as office procedures, reports, ,
,~ [
. ~. g construction methods, testing, handling and storage. l J
/ Hany of these have been prepared by-QA Engineers. . -
l
/ I feel that a OA nethod or orecedure. should be limited r
'. p to one which generates CA d'ocumentation, and that 1y/ -
_nany of these s.h..o..u.ld be soecified_as cenrd;ruction or
- nanage_nent directives.
p .
.pe
.o . 'L C' '
, a..{~
( Taiser Engineers, Inc. -
. .et '. .To:
[hf,' ' 'Re : Mm. H. ~irmar nuclear Power Plant . Page 3 ,
.p6 Quality Assurance - &Tn . . ,g/ ; . ".' U
- c. SPPM - The Speciel Processes Probedures Manual
,'s.!, centeins about 50 procecures for f abrication, 'velding, 2,$ proof testing, NDE, and do:cmentation, all of 4hich
.-)-
were prepared en the job, with approvals by Oakland
,g, and by the Site Weld /IDE QA Engineer. They are very
,', p, : detailed, and represent a great deal of work. I find
'it hard to iragine that such documents, and particularly
.- , , , qualified welding procedures, were not already
- i available within the Kaiser Engincers organi=ation.
h .- .. . ..
.q.. '.s .' '..... -
G. CIP - A Constrection Inspect on Plan is'adtep-by-step
. Carection to an 'inspectcr detailing the" points he should Icok for throughout an entire construction
. procesa. .
/*# The plans which we have seen go far'beyond the -
. pi i reasonable det=il which should be'recuired.- A clan D
'should be eeneric rather than scecific, and sho'uld
- f b6 [ outform by an theinspacto-ba:Is for a check list which is to be filled g r L -
, In ny opinion a constructica pl'an should be developed g&' by the pe:ple resconsible for constrt tion.
- An inspector shc ld utilize a construe:1on plan in-following the process of the work. The inspection.re would be a check list based on the construction olan.' port
~
Por any ganeric plan the documentatien of' inepse' tion should be designated to be more thorough for an
- Essential activity than for a Hon-Essential ene, since the Essential de=c=entatien will be subject' to more detailed QA suditing. "O' .
I unders tand that we have not 'seen all..of,,,the CIP's , 6 .-
.d but the ones we have seen have been. prepared by
.. / A Engineers. I further have been told that r.ost of -
/
khem required for the project have been written. i
/ / -
However, I would like to see this responsibi*lity
- r l removed frca the OA Engineers inn.ediately. . ,, , ,__(, ,;
V
, {.s e. DD'C and Nn Preparation - A Design Documant Change is l a request to tne designer to permit a deviation from '
. the original design. Nor= ally it is ppepared before .
. or during construction.
A Honconformance Repodt is used to docu=ent an aspect' i o'f construction which is at variance from the design. Up untii thi's time, some of these reports have been
, initiated and prepared by QA Engineers. . .
l~ -...- . . - .
r .. .. .. . L- , . .To : ,, Eaicar Engineers, Inc. -
' I?,.? .
- h. .
IM. H. Zir.nsr Nuclear Pc.39: Plant ' Fe: - Page 4
! Quality Assurance *
-[-
~ - . . h .. - It is ny cpinion that the KEI procedures should . place the responsibility fer these reports on . . y:; construction Engineerinc for work for which that
- F ' $ ' g- 0 activity is directly responsible. Obviously. ,the'
.,: F' inspectors who find ncnconformances vould'have an input, but the preparatica should go back'to the.ncst
- . : # [ # w) Certa:.nly .
knowledgeable party, which -is ' Construction .Er.gineering. the preparation should not be.done'by QA
- j, f ' . -
, Engineers. Their responsics.lity in these. natters is
;; . c.. to audit 'to assure that the procedures are carried out. '
, , , , . If the procedures are c'orrect and the' activities are
.. , carra.ed out in accordance with the proced.ures, the .
,Ip,r!< Work dcne will be in cenpliance with approved" designs. .
4 Contractors should also be instructed .to.. usa'the DDC -
*;f.,I and NP. Procedures Whan applicable. - . .. ?$ dd .~- # '
i*
. ytur~m 3 In this connection, there should be n'an5aEory'Ir'ules ,
( as to when a CDC or a UR is required.. T h i s v i l l-s ' provent foot-dragging and finger-pointin.g, ., ,
, . : .r,c. :.;: :.w..:
- 5. Receiving And Warehousins i ;.EN ' g., ,d - -
, .v y - .
Ife have been trying to revise'the Receiving irocedures to
,/ I place nere responsibility en the warehous'e and receiving inspectors, -
and to relieve the QA Engineer of routine duties.' l Another objectiva [ .O is to put greater emphasis on the assurance of: control..of Essential l \ ccnpanent:. '
. :.t:M"M .": ..&.3. nn, . .
l 6. Conclusion -
...l M a. . : '. :.
,m
... . .n. ~-:
.; . . ?- .
I have includsd the foregoing discussion to ach.onstr'at'e l
- g. the point I nade at our neeting; nancly, thst the J2I'OA Engineers have picked up so nany papers,'ork and inspection functions that they-cannot concentrate on the sur,veillance auditing which is their !-
basic reopensibility. At the meeting, when I' asked that you consider ,, g ,- re:noving inspect:.cn frcn the CA activity, you expressed conce. n . I c that your QA nanual and many procedures would have to be drastically
. i. altered, which might involve us in new reviews by the NRC and; .. .*
ASIL
.. o.
n + t, Tr.orefore my present request is a compromise by which'you ./ i will naintain your QA/QC orcani:ation as is, but Will Work with - j Coiintruction Engineering and Inspection to turn over,the ro,utine
- L. aci.iyities to thed. '
,7 - ;, -
~
'J l u.. . o -
"' The dutics of OA Engir.eering will be redefined so as' to
. concentrace on surveillance and audits ci KEl construction and of all subcontractors on the project to assure that procedural require-nents are being fulfilled and that the required document.ation is '
. . i provided. In the event of noncooperation or nonconpliance in any l I of these areas, the responsibility for obtaining corrective action .
4 Eh
gg - 4s? , . f , To Xaiser Engineers, Inc. f.y
. ;. .e .
'Re: 1M.. H. Zimm:r Nuclear Pcwcr Plant Page 5 ,
(%' y.
; ~ .
Ouality Assurance will first fall upon EEI QT. Engideering, and will be do:,rrented A lb for owner review. If the nonc rplicnce persists, the matter will v' then bO:0=e subject to dircOt action by the C.G.& E. QA&S Section,
,and. finally by C.G.& E. Manage =ent. ,
. 7. Your nesponse .
After you have had time ~to review thi's letter "and to analy:e. its ramifications vi+hi-- the IEI orcanisation_, please -
. advise nc, and ve vill hold another meat 2.ng to disenss .the "-
subject in further detail. We have a nunber of cA natters nending,
' but I should like to scenend ' action on all of them unt;jil the ba.stc._
progran discussed herein is setticp. p
* ~
p , very truly yours, ,
. . TES CINCINNATI CAS t,"ELICTEIC COMPAtW - e
~
Tlfu..d %f_
#DWARD C. PANDOFE[/ ,-
Principal Quality' Assurance &.
- Standards Engineer General Engineering Department ECP:jeb .
cc: V. P. McMahoa 4. . D..R. McSparrin .- ; . W.11. Dichhoner - . c ', . *
'.t E. A. torgnann ... l ,
C. W. Deringhaus - q J.,.
' f -
.R. J. Van Veen * *
.Gi <- . R. L. Dirr .. ...>'..' .
W. W. Schwiers j . ,. .
. s
?pELR bp.p%'.'.'[
'f
.iAg&g.I91975g.,A l.. -
. . - rom. .
. v*f. Wc:yllLf4 h.; '
I v0 r;;TD .
, i e.
,m -
m).. .. .j , . .
--.v sd.
.. ~,
.g?.
- ' . e..i m-v.rrmp-.1,-w. nw:.n v.
MQ wt-Y,:,*.t 8.e D . Q .; 4.lg.aw
.& p .r %~-Q!. -
,. . "THE C. INCINNATI GAS &. ELECTRIC COMPANY .
. rr 5LW,,,2~St":
~ cwr.m>um c.wo avw
"+- ..-
& -> March 15, 1975 - - "
/ J 'f * ' " - -
jy M' .T
' -.od E J Prie:!ri::h ~
O gp , _
- <; .c/o.p. P x::.wn
^ pg . .r v 3.r.y.g:. .- - -.
/ Prom: .C. A. S::ith
, Mr. W. J. Friedrich .,,
J~.aiser Engineers, Inc. .
d P. O. Box 201 .
?*U 1 M F -
.1 g..... .
.. ,Noscow, Oh,io..45153 . .
72:, tim.' E
.. ZUil'.ER NUCLT.AR Poli 3?. PIJu T *
. . ,m's *..
2f,
, QUALITY ASSURMiCi., . -
.T....y -
. W.O. 57300-960, JO3 E-5590 .
4 .. 3 Daar Mr. Triedrich:
. . . . .-G?.-;t < -
~, .
~ ~ .
~ Ac ve" discussed at a meeting in your office en March :ll,
' 1975, I am convinced that the KEI QA/QO organization on tho ,,
. Wm. F..
Iit:nar Pro)'ect esnnot nrovide for cotir.:m utilination o'f the hineers and Insoectors in the orcan -.:ation. In writing this letter .L e. uy.d; to su=::rize ny impressions
- cf tha veshnesses which I feel exist, and the corrective actions which appear approprea.e. sna..i. 22tter is not a directit:n. It is Written to set forth r.rf thcughts and to invite consideracion and
, cox7, ants by you and by anyone else who wishes to nahe .a contribution.
. .. : .; y. '
- 1. Insee: tion^
. ;.S : P" .'. :y . .
, _, .p.. ...
. 1 In the original concept of contracting with KSI as the
' constructor for thh project, many of us assuned that 'KE! vould'
' perform direct craft supervision withcet engaging subcontractors for nost of the erection and installation vork. Under that
,. . .. concept Kn1 would be required to provide the .first leye1..of .
inspectica for routine and continuing surveill'ance, which I define l l ' as a Quality Centrol function. The XII inspection section was - developed to provide this capability, and was placed under the' supervision.of the Site QA Manager. .
- . : 8* *
.2.
Direct Construction , 9 ",'. *. i.'-. EBI is performing concrete placement, piping. erection; -- - and ele =trical construction directly, and is responsible 'for the 3'
' inspection and QC in there activities. Because of the magnitude F f of tha work F.EI has engaged specialists such as Nutting and -
l, j Hagnaflux to assist in the inspection vork. . .
.t , t -
!t ,
.i .
- 9. .) --
i . * . .: , ? - l l -.. _. ._ _ _ _
.. e
. , ' rg.: . . .
,l . :
}:aiser Engineers, Inc. ,
- i. . '
Re: Mm. E. Zimmer Nuclear Power plant
* /,.T ; .. , Page 2 Ci Ouality Assurance
'l
. . ' .". l: % . !, .. .
- s. ..:. , . -
. 5
*.s.' -
s: ... . . .
. , . '.g
- 3. Subcontractors' . , . . .
~ .. .
.'. 'Each sub' contractor who is involved in any field' work - *
., which is categoriced as Essential, Class I, safety Related; 'or ASME Sectica III by the designer is required to supply A QA 2'.anual and to be capable of fulfilling his ccr.mitments for: supplying inspectipn personnel and QA do::rnentation.
. . . / - :: r.Uc&: ;."
- e. :.' .4.::i-t.'
l
'l, As it has worked cut CBC cane on the -job with).2$. good OA program and performad as described abova en the centninrient .
i "-
, liner instcllatien under m QA surveillance and: periodic' auditing, On the other end of the spectrum, Inland-Rycreen/Elinger
.1 appear to have left the' inipaction of rebar plsecuent most.ly up l I. - . to T.EI inspectors. F.EI should have required the 'subczntractor to do his job, but at this lato data it would probabljyLba unwise to atter.pt a change. : .. . 2;.,E..? W 1
.. ~. .g..- g,., - . +. ,h. . . . .
As n2v subcontracters start work en the' '-job,(such?as Reactor Centrols on reacter corponent installation.,IBristol on structural steel, and. Wlding=r/nB on h 'AC, .they are re fulfill their CC cbligations under KU QA survei.lfance.. quired to
. . . n . ..:,v. ; .. .
- 4. Instructions. Procedures, and Plans , , I.N.sulY h. E
. ... .. . i. .s .
KEI seems to have .adepted an overly ce=oley.'% aper wofk s%.*Lte.D , which has required too much ::cn3 and effort Dy tha -
- QA Engineers. If those activitics continue in tha' future, the
- i .' QA Ingineers vill not be able to fcnction effectively on their prir.ary duties of surveillance and auditing. - ,,.g3. . .l.. , * - -
v ..... .. ..
- So e of the' paper work on which the QA Engineers 'have -
obviously spent time in described belcw: ' -
. ....... .e.
~ ..,....;;<,g.::e s. . > . .
s= ,,.e...
. a.
.) , ,,
- n. CAP - The KEI OA Manual is made.up of. Quality -
*' . Assurance Procedures, with cne responsive to each
' . , of the 18 QA criteria in 10CFR50 appendix 3. Tnese ,
are cenplete ev. cept for occasional. updating,. and. are l not subject to criticisa. . **~.~l.',,..,. . : .; . i
<- .. b. OACHI - This is a " Quality Assurance - construction ' '
- a Methods Instruction." 'The index shows 'that' 3S of
- I j ,,.} 7, these have baen prepared dealing.;with-.a variety of .
* ' [' 4 ,- subjects such as office procedures, reports, ;
. y construction methods, testing, handling and storage. .
Many of these have been prepared by- QA Engincers. l ', */ . l U I feel that a CA nethod or procedure. should be limited Y \.-
. p to one which generates CA docu' cntation, and that
/ many of these should be soecilieA as construction or
- / -
nanag_ement directives. . .
.. s, 1 I .
- ^ - - - - - - - - ^ - - - -
y ~* ' 4
.: . To.: Taiser Engineers, Inc. -
. . ,L s .
'yy.
.y .
Fm. H. Zirmer Nuclear Power Pla.nt
, Re .
Page 3 30 Quality Assurance . 1
-E. n. . .
. . \
- . 3. '. - c. SPPM - The Special Processes Procedures Manual g,
,.'I,,y,! ,'
3 contains about 50 proredures for f abrication, velding', proof testing, NDO, and dc=t: entatica, all of chich were prepared en the job, with approva.ls by Oakland ,
- f'y . ;. - and by the Site Weld /!OI QA Engineer. They are very *' 3
,j.,; detailed, and rep:csant a great deal of work: I find it hard to imagine that such documents, and particular1;
, . ., qualified welding procedures, were not;.al;coady ' '
i available within the Kaiser Enginears organization.
- d. CIP - A Construction Inspection Plan is.a. .,. sten.by-step
. cirection to an 'inspecter detailing the" points he
- f. should icok for throughout an entire construdtion
. process. -
'The plans which we have seen go far'beyond . the -
reasonable detail which should be recuired. - A =lan
. [U' should be ceneric rather than seecific, and she'uld
!},'
;p [r form the basis for a ene: X list which is to be filled 4;p[ 4 t
out by an inspacto:. In ny opinion a constructica hl'an should, be developed
.s .
g C' by the people resocnsible for const:tetion. .An inspector should utilize a construe:1on plan in-
- following the prc ess of the work. The inspection.re i
would be a check list based on the construction olan.'po-
' For any ganeric plan the documentation of' inepac' tion
~
., should be designated to be more thorough foi an -
Essential. activity than for a Non-Essential one, since the Eszential de t::entatien will be subject' to taore detailed QA auditing. ' Of ; . I undershand that we have not seen all..of,1.th.e CIP's, 3
.- .- but the ones we have seen have been prepared by kOA Engine.ers. I further have been told that. r.ost of -
)them required for the project have been written. '
/, '
L ': ' (, / However, I would like te see this responsibi'lity **- removed frca the OA Incineers im.ediately. - Es .- -. . .. ;
- e. DD'C and NR Preparation - A Design Documant Change is' l a request to tne ce=J.gner to permit a :deviatio,% from .
. the original design. Nocally it is' prepared before
, or during construction. -
1 .
. s ,,
A Honconforman=s Repo$t is used to docu=ent an aspect' ! c'f construction which is at variance from the design. '
;- 1 i Up untii thi's time, some of these reports have been, -
i , initiated and prepared by QA Engineers. . . , l ~ - , , i*9 *.* . E
W .
~
.g.b. g- *
'. To: Kaiser Engineers, Inc.
. =
, ,.. / '
. 'Fe: m. H. Zirc:er nuclear Pc.er Flant '
Page 4 Ounlity Assurance - ~ - It is n./ cpinien that the F.EI procedures should h .. . . place the responsibility fer these reports on - ['b,- Construction Engineerine for work for which that
- i
- 0 activity is directly responsible. Obviously. ,the'
.. E m inspectors who find nonconformances vould have an u,'...
# .Q input, but tha preparatica should go back to:the.rost knowledgeable parcy, vhich is Construction .E:<.gineering.
Certainly the preparation should not be done by QA Engineers. Their responsic:.i.:.:y ::.n these.: natters is .' ':.y~c.,. 1, to audit 'to assure that the procedures,are -carried out. i ,
. If the procedures are c,orrect and the' activities are
.T Tfi, ".
' carried out in accordance with the proced.ures, the
~
W g work done will be in ec=pliance with approved' d2 signs. . Contra:: tors should also be instructed '.-W..uses the DDC - V'i and NP. p ocedures whan applicable. - . .; 'Mid .~- n.ym::,:: - ,;" 3 In this connection, there should be mand... atory .. ir'ules ( - as to when a tDC or a UF. is required.. ':'his vill. , prevent foot-dragging and finger-pointing.:".'
. .- . 7, o.:.;.' .. ::..-
- 5. Feceivine And Warehousine i ;.' 0N ' -:.y ..- [. :j; -
N'* I Ke have been trying to revise the Receivinh, Nocedures to N place nere responsibility en the warehous'e and receiving inspectors, and to relieve the QA Engineer of routine duties. ' Another objective D , is to put greater emphasis on the assure.nce of: control..of Essential i components. - Y.m :. ,,
.. , p; u t y :s. .. .
- y.;;iit ff
- 6. Conclusion -
p1.e... ; 5 I have included the foregoing discussion te del:.onstr' ate Q, . ' I the point I nade at our meeting; namely, thse the EEI'OA Engineers M- have picked up so nany paperwork and inspection functions that they' F- - cannot concentrate on the surveillance auditing whi~ch 'in 'their basic resoonsibility. At the meeting, when I~ asked that you consider 9; removing inspectica frc= the QA activity, you expressed concern that your QA nantal and many procedures would have to be drastically i altered, which might involve us in new reviews by the NRC and: AsnE
. .- a-o .
7terefore my present request is a comprc=ise by which you ./ r f,; vill caintain your QA/OC organi:ation as is, but will work with - Coiintruction Engineering and Inspection to turn over the routine -
.l aci.iyities to them. *
,/ -
- -J8- j w .. , .
"' The duties of QA Encineering will be redefined so as' to .
concentrace on surveillance and audits c:. KE1 construction and of
' all subcontractors on the project to assure that procedural require-nents are being fulfilled and that the required documentation is
. . [ provided. In the event of noncooperation or noncompliance in any
*J V of these areas, the responsibility for obtaining. corrective actica ..
x
W;p. .- To: Taiser Enginecrs, Inc. -
.g.y ,,'o .
Lf,; P.t W.. H. Simm:r Du:len Pcwcr Plant Page 5
!.f . - - Orality Assurance -
,P , will first i.ill upon :31 CA Ingineering, and will be do:cented A lb for owner review. If the nOn:crplicnce persists, the matter will v' then bccone subject to di:cet action by the C.G.& E. QA&S Section,. and. finally by C.G.& E. Management. .
. 7. Your Response .
After you have had time 'to review thi's letter 'and to analyre.its ramifications vi+'i- ec IEI orcanization_, nlease .
,- . advise re, and we .till hold another meat:.ng to d:.scuss .the ..-
~
subject in further detail. 14 have a n- =bar of OA mtters nondin:,
' but I should like to sesnend action on all of the= unt,1.1 the bqsac_
program cascussed herein is settlep. .. very truly yours, - f -
. s- -
[ , .
. . THE CIFCINNATI CAS &"ILIOTRIC CO! GARY -
4 3y btL-dC- . EDWARD C. PANDOFE[I Erin =ipal Quality' Assurance!& Standards Engineer General Engineering Depar.t. ment ECP:jeb . cc: V. P. M:Mahon 4. D..R. McSparrin M.11. Dichhoner - '
- E. h. Eorgnann* -
C. W. Deringhaus - J .,\
.R. J. Van Veen "
* *'.f,'* ,
' .61-i -
, R. L. Dir: .'
.. t .7. , - .
W. W. Schwiers .- . ~ . , ,. 4 pm,
~
. g ?' g g f~ ,t g
;- q
. E,*
MQ3 u,).Of" O tA ! J ! . w s,u.l'Ifgrp&llm% ,h i . i -
. s,e '
[4] \" Tf&, ' a - e
- eb
~
.. . i. . , ..
/ % ', - '. "
y 4l Q-s A. ( '-
/ G ! 5 T E f:? gf4 *N TAA "*W'
- ENGINEERS p, g cen.2 ,
. M AIS E R E N GIN E E R S. IN C. 4 M AIS E R C E NT E 84 3 0 0 L A M E SID E D RIV E O A KLAN D. C ALIF O R NI A 94666 i
- March 21, 1975 n p' O H. WILLsAMS .
Mr. E. C. Pandorf wyQ 4 _ cA M- *--
- General Engineering Department .
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co=pany #.<,8, -/ *
~
139 E. 4th Street d oc - Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Dear Ed:
The following is in reference to your letter of March 18, 1975 to Bill Friedrich outlining your concerns and thoughts with respect to the KEI S/QC organization. I received a copy of your letter while Bill Friedrich was here in Oakland for a management review and update of the Zi= er progrc=, and our other corporate E act.ivities. The ti=ing was ideal as it afforded me an opportunity to have an understanding 5 of your thoughts and concerns and discuss them in some detail with Bill Friedrich and Vince M:2iahon. h<Te i.
\; Y There are a nu:.ber of points in your letter which cover QA, our construction activities and overall =anagement Dh. .. b philosophy. 'I would like the opportunity to review these $Rh points carefully and respond to you rather than leave this k.g .'.,
entirely up to Bill. I plan to have my co==ents in writing -v t *
' to you in approximately two weeks. Following this we would ,k -
certainly appreciate the opportunity to sit down with you 'g , and discuss each of the points.
\
- Very t y yo -s, 2 .
. . g p.+#'
D. H. Williams Vice President , . Power Division . \} ; DIM:ad .
~
cc: W. J. Friedrich V. P. McMahon O N/ j,9e i D. R. McSparrin fo .
. W. H. Dickhoner .. 4/4 <-
4 E. A. Bor6 nann . ,
- C. W. Beringhaus 2S .4,,yp<g'y f {,1 4 R. J. Van Veen -
$ g r
S . -- s ! R. L. Dirr W. W. Schwiers p *Y
\
R. J. Wolf / gl \\ G. L. Roberts /
.. r
.. r,
N ' V.'P. McMahon t) % + . .. D March 26,1975 01kland (*/n ,, ; .*.' FRO' "* W. h{U gy, , R J. Friedrich coms To D. R. Mc parrin *
/2 4 I
D. H. Will ams "b 0!;;[,.% '3
/[' ,
477g- g2 job NO. Moscow, Ohio 7070 sunJECT FIQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL Ref. (a) Letter W. J. Friedrich to E. A. Borg= ann, Attn. E. C. Pandorf / dated 10/14/74 - KC-2643-Q, same subject (b) Letter W. H. Dickhoner to D. R. McSparrin dated Oct. 30, 1974 KEB-7, same subject y (c) Letter D. R. McSparrin to E. A. Borgmann dated 12/9/74 - KC-2903-C 6 Month Non-Manual Forecast (d) Letter E. A. Borgmann to D. H. Williams dated 1/15/75 - KEB-12 Manpower . Authorization Six months have passed since my original request for manpower (Ref. a above) . CG&E responded by denvine mv recu -t (Ref, b) saying that subcontractors should supply their own 2.nspection forces and that KEI has been assisted by Notting and Magnaflux to perform their inspection, therefore, the present staff is adequate. Of co_urse I disagree violentiv vith this intery g tion, and I as again requesting additional personnel in accordance with the 6 month schedule dated 2/28/75 attached. (M'; second request was part of 6 month forecast (Ref. c) and again I was denied by Mr. Borgmann's letter (Ref. d)). !" The structural steel and the painting and coating requires one (1) man full time and a fraction of a man for part time. We have been relieved _o_f inspection resoonsibilitie,s for Service Level 2 areas _ (Ref. letter R. J. Van Veen to D. R. McSparrin dated 3/4/75 - KEF-5) . Inspection will be required on Service Level 1 areas _yhich CC&E is saying that 3 or 4 inspectora Ilie question is where do I get the'3 or 4 inspectors to should be qual _i_f;te_d. i train. I can get by with one. l The S&L Specification H-2174, Sec. 5.3, Form 1705 requires the bolts to be l tightened to the tension indicated in the AISC Specification. The inspector l will verify in each connection on the structure approximately 10:: of the l bolts that are tested but never less than two. This work will start in April.
'Ihc man I propose for painting can be used for the structural steel inspection as of ten as possible, the other man or portion thereof will come from the existing force.'
Electrical Tray and Conduit does not require any additional people until they l begin cable pulling which is not scheduled, but it would be comfortable if we l had a requisition approved so that the man could be on board when the cable activity starts. S_i_nce Foothill is doing the cable pulling sh_ould Ipe ' Pandorf's philosophy and say they Sinuld_pIQvice t h e j. r . ou n i n s pe c tion _? I recommend one electrical inspector be put on board by August 1975. i l m n,
4.a u . , .m 4 , Page 2 Equipment will be placed in June, July and August. Much of this equipment vill require inspection at installation because its Class I and a maintenance program thereafter. Monitoring or surveillance of this equipment is necessary and we should have one (1) mechanical inspector added to the staff in June.
- Floor drains can be handled by the present staff of sec.nanical/ welding inspectors, but the increase in process piping in various areas and elevations
-> vould require one additional welding inspector.
Summarv . March Anril May June July August 1 Welding 1 Electrical 1 Structural / 1 Mechanical Painting , 1 Welding (Swing Shif t) Construction intends to start a third shift (May 1). We do not even have coverage on the second shif t which is buildine up. We try to cover che best we can by nolaing men over whenever we see a need. We are not in trouble yet but with the piping and electrical work starting to accelerate we will be in trouble before you knce it. In February, there were 678 craftsnan on board, March we now have,786, within 6 months we will have 1000 craftsnan on the jobsite and I do not believe our current staff .is sufficient to take care of that much activity. Your assistance is hereby requested. l l
- l 1
ent M _/ a a
& f d w:c+ b A- / q {r ,
f n-: _ f
. b [ .
v"(T ? "- ^ _ % 42,5 w <::/<- -
-ek (v.7.s.- ;
rd +7/4y l & *, q& . ..
. . . . - . - = . .
9
i LEGEUQ ' 8tPO4r Daft ** ISSUE DATE / ACTUAL Vs. TAA0tf PCT. Actcanceur n b j. } [ "PilYSICAL PROGRESS" REVISION DATE R
, g Si,ORf DATE a _, .. 4 TARGET 1Aacciesace=15}2alsole sooo cuan=rroucAs, JOB
SUMMARY
REPORT DATE February 28, 1975 , MARCil APRIL MAT JULY DESCRIPilON - _ilVNE-
--- AUGUST
' - - -~ "197 5 ", -
j P. ( Electrical (Tray, Cond) 1 2Q ll6' lt8' I 1 i J 34 l
-l _33)
__ 54 i (Light,etc.) '7' _ 1. I ?.[ I , I 7' L l!2 1 L
. _2.0..1 J- 21 i f
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ .-. .. _ - - c. c -- - - y - - - Piping (Proc.) _ { _10. [ _ _{ _1 1' I ::7' 1 ;t8 i i :?5 l ' 19 i (Fl. Drns.) { 1Q S' 5' I i l S ' i 1H __ 11__ - s t Struct. Steel B.f l ' 2' _ { _1 2_ '__ _ _I i 1 2' i a l _ _J_J.l ,
=
Earthwork ( 1:.) { F1; I F9; ;:9? ( t 21 l J 21 > m
!!VAC :c ( 6; 6' 6; i q
_ { ' i i 6 ) ' 6 i ' Blockwork E ( 25) { 2 5: ( 25; t 1:5 ? ( D ' _25_i 2 t g_ __ q_5 _ _. i Concrete ( _2 ) d _( 4; 8: _ _ . _ _ _ ._ _ _ __(_3fl4. _ _ _ _( 4_:;3_ _. _ ( 4.00 i_ _ L365
, i___
Painting & Coating l l _ ( 20) ( 10: 1 F0: I 20: 1 20 i i 20 l Equipment t n ( f) ( 1 0: ( 7; i f,0 . ( 60 t L 70 t flisc. Steel L _ _ _ Dewa te_ =r_Lna ( :) ( 3: ( 3: ( 3; ( 3 ' ' 3 ' l [ i 10TAL 5 j Sj 3' _ J( 6J )_ _ ( 55 4) _ ( 6F7: ( 651 l q622 i ! t p, p. (Based on 41,040 MM) (1, . 26) ( 1. 4/
)_ ( 1. 351) I 1. 6/ ) { 1.58) L1, S' ).
PROJECT NO. 7070 KAISER ENGINEERS, INC. SHEET I OF .
~
MdN% '$ ' j
' [ C A f E f.=~ P ?
~
ENGINEERS ( . uisca enciuccas.iuc. h b
- p. o. sox n oi g .,..,, ,,,,,-
uoscow. ouie 4siss ,y ,. ., .e , February 20, 1974
~'
p g 2 5 19 4 s ,,,",. KC-1760-Q l9-9 e
- RAGu g s.} D, y . . _ , ,
.i g - a ,g /
Mr. A. E. Rothenberg, Manager 4 General Engineering Department O tra The Cincinnati Cas & Electric Co. . 139 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Attention: E. C. Pandorf, Principal Engineer
Subject:
Vendor Surveys for ASIE Code Materials Centlemen: As a manufacturer and holder of an "N" stamp, we are obligated under section NA 3361 of the code for surveying and qualifying the Quality i System Programs of suppliers. Our Quality Assurance Manual QAP #5, Procurement Doc'ument Control, Paragraph 6 was rewritten to satisfy the Code Co:tmittee (Mr. Fritts). He was very emphatic at that time that this paragraph be included and complied with. He stated that this is one item that is ' reviewed by
, the Code Inspector assigned to the project. '
, At the present time KEI is purchasing code materials such as veld rod, !. pipe, and. pipe fittings. It has been our practice to perform surveys - at the suppliers plant, and we wish to continue and not put our AS1E status in jeopardy.
- Recently you have disapproved reqacsts for such survevs. At the time of
* 'your decision it was afscur.sca with ce and I did agree. However, since that time I have had an opportunity to review the. code and discuss the details with the KEI personnel involved. I am convinced now that you and I erred, and I would like you to reconsider. *
' This same requiremant is imposed in Appendix B of 10CFR50 Criterion VII,
- and it would behoove you to review your procedures relative to essential ,
hardware and act aceo' rdingly. ' Very truly yours. *' I KAISER CiGINEERS, IMC. y.fJAdqbb W. J. Friedrich Site Quality Assurance Manager bec: D. R. McSparrfn - - ** ' D.'H. Williams / - T. A. Bedford , V. P. Helbhon - _,..m - - - - . , , _ , , , , . _ _ -_ ,.m.,,_, _
y t DM ENG/NEERS M AIS E R E N G1N E E R S. $ N C. M Al$ ER C ENT ER
- 300 L A M E SIDE D RIV E ,
O A M L AN D. C A L[FO RN G A 94004
~ ~ l 7.%
April 16,197
\- i... S
. .' N.. .
. f.h ' p %X, ,' .,
v.', .- g( %, s tsj yb.,
.i.
oh f
..7 gg<.
.3. )4A .
,G C. lp /t ~
l Mr. Edward C. Pandorf s y',.. -
.- 4e I #
d,' El. k' yin..Q General Engineering Department
~
.:r. . .T .' '-X" 0
The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Cc=pany 5',
' M). - s N. ,,y"f l' R /
. 139 East Fourth Street g.) 7FT W.'\ d
, p/
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 /g g
Dear Mr. Pandorf:
In your letter of March 18, 1975 to Bill Friedrich you expressed numerous concerns and thoughts with respect to the KEI Quality Assurance organication, specific points on methods of operation, and corrective actions which appear to you to be appropriate. I think, as managers, it is important that we periodically review our program and the objectives and performance of the organication, and I appreciate your suggestion that we make such a review at this stage in the project. Before responding to each ite= in your letter, I believe it is i=portant to cover the basis for development of the present KEI program. Kaiser Engineers' interpretation of the requirements of 10CI?.50, Appendix B, is that the field quality assurance functions, which include auditing, surveillance, and inspection, are to be kept in-dependent of the actual construction organization. Most, if not all, present day major nuclear projects follow this concept. Adoption of , this approach precludes perfor=ance of inspection functions by personnel reporting through the construction organication. This position was taken after careful review of industry practices and problems on past nuclear projects in regard to QA, programs and actual experience of our personnel on other nuclear projects. As you know, this area is of current interest to intervenors and we believe that our approach eliminates the possibility of question on any con-flict of interest. The KEI program is based upon advanced planning and effective control. We believe that this is essential to make certain that the required i inspections are identified and properly performed with a minimum expen- { diture of inspection time. Equally important, our experience has been that through careful advanced planning many issues with regard to re- ' quirements are raised and resolved in the office prior to work being - performed,. rather then in the field in the midst of operations, resulting ; I
* ~
D N $ W-
', s .
Mr. Edward C. Pandorf , April 16, 1975 in omissions, unnecessary delays, and work stoppages. In addition, through the planning process, all personnel involved beco=e more knowledgeable of the requirements that r.ay affect their areas of responsibility, which in tu m contributes to the success of the overall project.
~ ~
In your conclusions you suggest transferring some functions from quality assurance to construction personnel. In addition to avoiding
, any question of conniet of interest, we, as mana6ers, are interested in maintaining a maxinum utilication of manpower with clearly defined responsibilities. To transfer functions which might require hiring of
' additional personnel in the construction organication to perfor= these functions and possibly dilute the controls, defeats this objective.
There are currently five quality engineers assigned to the site Quality Assurance organication, which we feel is minimal but adequate to per-form the quality assurance functions of our program during the course of this project. There is a need for additional inspection personnel as the volume of the job expands, and we w:U1 be reviewing our needs with CG&E in this area very shortly. The basic quality assurance functions as defined in the recent amend-ment .to 10CIE50 on Organication are: "(a) assuring that an appropriate quality assurance program is established and effectively executed and (b) verifying, such as by checking, auditing and inspection that activi-
' ties affecting the safety-related functions have been correctly per-
. formed." A brief su:-"U of the specific functions of the quality engineers and inspectors in our progra= is as fc11ows: .
Quality Engineers l o Plan the inspection program in their respective discipline, based upon the requirements of the drawings and specifications. . o Perform evaluation of selected EEI suppliers quality assurance Programs. o Review purchase orders for inclusion of quality' assurance .
- requirements.
. . i o Prepare calibration procedures. .
o Monitor changes to configuration documents to assure incorporation ' into plans and instructions. o Perform surveillance and audits. .<- j o Review quality documentation for completeness and compliance.
~
o Provide technical assistance to inspectors, as required, including preparation of nonconformance reports.
- gq t 1 , , .
. . l
. O
. 96 .
',' v -
Mr. Edward C. Pandorf .
. April 16, 1975 Inspectors -
o Perform receiving, special process, installation inspections. - o Monitor calibration.
~
o Document inspections. -
. o Document nonconformances. .
o Verify qualifications of personnel, where required. For the quality engineer to be effective and contribute to the overall i success of the program, he must be knowledgeable of all the requirements
- in his discipline as well as related disciplines that may affect his area l
of responsibility. He acco=plishes this by preparing CIP's and QACMI's
. which are used by the inspector in assuring that the drawings and speci-l fications,. regulatory guides and code requirements are consistent and ; pmvide technical direction to the inspectors, in lieu of each inspector j providing his own interpretation and judgment.
l The inspector implements the quality assurance program by verifying the characteristics outlined in the Inspection Plan. He has the authority to stop work, delay pours when they are not ready, and identify deficien-cies by reporting them on nonconfomance reports so that they receive the proper attention and disposition. The inspector works very closely a with the QA engineer, thus minimizing the number of personnel required to assure complete compliance. i We believe the program as defined above does provide for efficient con-duct of the work and, when viewed with the NRC requirements of 10CFR50, provides optimum overall use of project manpower. The fo'1owing 1 are comments to the numbered topics in your letter. , 1. ! Inspection . j It is nomal practice on nuclear power projects to subcontract l Apecialty items such as containment liner, field erected tanks, . i etc. Your assertion that EEI is providing first level of in-spection as the constructor is valid and we will, continue to I pmvide this service for the work we do. When work is subcontracted, . , whether it be by CG&E or EEI, we will expect satisfactory QA pro- . grams to be part of the agreement. It is our intent to enforce all i tems of the subcontracts including QA requirements. When sub- l
- contractors fail to perfom as expected, we have an obligation }.
I to see that the requirements of the drawings and specifications ! l are complied with. . l
. . g
- e ,
l h 1 , e
- I l .
Mr. Edward C. Pandorf April 16, 1975
- 2. Direct Con
- :truction *
, With respect to your com=ents on Diiect Construction, Magnaflux was contracted because they provide a specialty service of non-destructive examination, and it was never intended that EI perfom radiography and ultrasonic testing. Use of a specialty contractor, such as Magnaflux, is standard practice on nuclear projects throughout the country. ,
] Tutting was engaged by EI at the direction of CGE reference letter A. E. Rotnencerg to D. h. McSparrin, dated August 31, 1971, to perform soils testing, concrete testing, rebar testing, batch plant inspection and other tests, such as slump, te=perature and air content.
3 subcontractors t We agree with your statement that each subcontractor involved in any field work categoriced as Essential, Class I, Safety-Related or ASME Section III must supply a @ program which includes in-spection and docu=entation. - l It ha: been our policy to review each subcontractor on the basis of the type of work to be perfor=ed, the magnitude of this work, the nature of their organication, and the potential impact of possible errors, and to make a deter =ination as to the level of
, control to be required by EEI S. With regard to CBI they did come on the job with a good @ program and did perform well. EI QA limited their efforts to monitoring this program. With regard to the rebar placement program, a decision was made early in the program, with concurrence by CG&E personnel, that it would be necessary to have EEI QA perform a thorough inspection of the rebar '
installation prior to placement of concrete. Regarding subsequent subcontractors, such as Reactor Controls, Bristol, etc., where an adequate QA program is defined and imple-mented,theEEIeffortswillbelimitedtosurvei.p.anceandauditing. Since these QA progams o hav,e_been approyd_hyLGLE, we suggest a Joint review of these programs by CG&E and EEI and the establish-ment of the ground rules for EEI to follow in controlling these subcontractors. . .
- 4. Instructions, Procedures and Plans h
We agree with your opinion that the QA engineers spent considerable h time on papezwork; however, planning and organicing are a part of l their fundamental duties and involves much paperwork. 'This is the ; method of operation in which they have complete control, continuous monitoring and a full understanding of their area of responsibility. ! The specific types of paperwork you mentioned we elaborate on are - as follows:
. 9 6 **
. e .
e g 3
s 4 . . i , Mr. Edward C. Pandorf . April 16, 1975 a) . QAP -- Quality Assurance Procedures are the responsibility
~
of the Site Quality Assurance Manager because they establish
- policy and the QA engineer spends very little time on the ~
+
, , initiation or changing thereof.
b) QACMI -- Quality Assurance - Construction Methods Instructions. Included in this category are two types of instructions, namely (1) Quality Assurance Instructions and (2) Construction Methods
~~
Instructions. The Quality Assurance Instructiens are prepared
.~. by quality engineers in,_,c20:nl.tatien vith mns%ructiem -
,- EDune.L, and the Construction MethoAS.Justru;3iicus.JLreJr,epared
( ... by construct 2.on personnel. 10CFR50, Appendix 3, requires that activities affecting quality , shall be prescribed by documented instructions. When more l , detailed procedures are required than specified elsewhere in the Quality Assurance Manual for i=plementation of the quality i assurance requirements of CGLE, GE, NRC, ASME and KEI, a Quality Assurance - Construction Methods Instruction is prepared in order to ensure compliance with the requirements and to effect uniformity I' - of inspections. This is outlined in further detail in QAP //8 ~ of the QA Manual. . 5 C In addition to meeting requirements, QACMI's are essential to KEI's Quality Assurance Program; it is a direct and positive
- - coumanication between the QA engineer and the inspector.
Without them our program would be weak and ineffective. We ,
- will make every effort to limit them to those which generate
-QA documentation as you requested. -
c) SPPM -- Kaiser Engineers has in the past had welding procedures M for their numerous pMjects in other fields but it was explained *
- ~: early in the negotiation for this job that, because of the strin6ent requirements on a nuclear project, specific procedures
- f. '-would be developed for this job to make certain that the latest
. --regulatory guides and code requirements were met.
n: . . . .
. d) CIP -- A Construction Inspection Plan serves as an instruction
$ l.to the inspector as you stated in your letter. We agree that
- these inspection plans should be generic whenever possible. I
- " A recent decision in the piping area to use isometries, for I ;-example, now allows us to use a more generic inspection plan on piping. We are reviewing other areas to see if generic plans
! - ' can be. used rather than specific plans. . i
^ -Construction planning is performed by the Construction Department. i
--- Quality engineers prepare inspection planning, when required.
I' Where the construction plans can be directly utilized as part
- I' of the inspection docu=entation, as in the case of isometrics, 1
- ~ every attempt is made to do so. To transfer the responsibility i
~~:. . : - :: 1. * -
- . ....~ :- . .
, u 1._ ; . -
* - . . . s -.- . - - -
- . , , - , ,, , ., - , , . - . , -----~ - - - . . - , . - , , - , - - . . .
Mr. Edward C. pandorf , April 16, 1975
, of writing the inspection plans would require additional con-
. struction personnel, more coordination and, in our opinion, dilute the efforts of the program k-ith an increase in site =an-
, power. It is therefore our intent to continue having the quality engineers prepare inspection planning, e) DDC and NR Pretaration -- Your definition of a Design Document Change and lionconformance Report is correct and they are from time to time initiated and prepared by a QA engineer.
gujafe that this should be the res.pqccibd14tv of Cets.+gmetion E gng and the inspectors who find nonconformances would renaer some input. DDC's are nor. ally initiated by Construction Engineering. IE's are prepared by inspectors or QA engineers to i report conditions which do not confor= to drawings or specification requirements. This method meets the requirements of 10CFR50,
- Appendix B, and pez=its organizational freedom to identify quality problems.
'As for the rules as to when a DDC or NR is required, they are:
Rule 1 -- A DDC is written before the fact. , Rule 2 -- An NR is written after the fact. I believe these rules have been adhered to throughout the job. 5 Receivine and Warehousing For proper management control and manpower . utilization, we feel that the existing operation has been proven to be effective and, there-fore, changes in the program would be unwarranted at this time.
- 6. Conclusion -
'To meet the requirements ol' 10CFR50 involves much pape2vork to provide ,
historical plant records and to substantiate that plant meets the high standards required for public safety. We believe our program is responsive in this regard and do net feel the quality engineers are unnecessarily burdened. , The duties of the quality engineers are as we defined, and we feel the current level of staffing of QA engineers is minimal but adequate for the project. - i We will continue to review the activities of these engineers to see
. . that they are not involved in other routine tasks that should be .
I handled by others. In addition, every attempt will continue to be made to minimize the paperwork on the project. . e O .
. e 8 .
g , I
O, o. .s .
'7,
- April 16, 195 ,,
... ~
Mr. Edward C. Pcndorf - W: . .. .:..-. '.. After you he.ve had en opportunity to review ou c=ents,- we vill"
""d-~*- '"
.. . . . - * :. . . ..? .be pleased to meet with you t,o recolve any outaten.*.ir.g ite=s and- ' "' " ,'. ' .
..,i' , ( . ~
*a f. 8 [' i f ',"'TreLeh :.ati:n1 N;reenent 'on the pre;;rar..
.~p ,, .
, ", , .'f . ] * ' ,
a ** */*-V T. 10 '""**""".'*****'aW********'*","- es. var.n.yr ... ."* rW'.s.rw et s: =~. .rs air ' + .-**a . . **.C.c. , , .*'er.C*/ * *=""* * *""* * * *' * *.* --
. e
.? .. .. . .. . .l,:,: ,.. .il.
^*
. . % Q..s.,very tru17 yours, . . . . . , r
.. : $..y::. .a,.
...v. :.
~ . ... .. *
.. . ,.c., : ., : . . ..
. 's .. +. ...a
. y.g. .,:: . KAlgra I ;Gms as, 30, r
@.- . , , . ." . 7, . -
. ,A ..i.:...f . .
.. . s. d,: p,:; : 's. * '. : '
- -' , .,. L r :. ..: ;. ...: .::. u. w:.:;.: a'..0RIGINAL . . w.a u -
r...
. . .. .. . . ...:. s .si 1.w..:.
. . .. SIGN ED BY .. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .r.A.- -. wr.u:.
. :. ,.a w. ..... . . u. . :......:.... : :.. .. :s.. .. . . .:. .. . D. II. VilLLIA.'. S .. . . . . . .
. ' , >w.3....
..s-.
- :. ?. .: n::.y.J..
;,. .:., ;n. . .p:.
i<
. . . ,s; .!:s G .: :i .. .
s
.v, x.. . .. ,. -;. ..
4.:.,:. . . .. .
.. . .. .. . ..~..v.r+.v:,D.' .'.
- 5. . y1111t.=s
- , na.-.:?:o:
. .. .. ...s . . .:' .
. ggy V,cegiyigigg he,Ldea.. .- - . .-
.m
- v. ...n.,,, . y . v. . *.v. ,,e- . :rr. .~,:e .
t=. .,.v. la
.. v.~. ..
~m-.. , .r.
.-o-.yo ~..n -
&. ; . .-.1,[
.a. . . .
.. ,"..s..., . .
..=
. .g, ... ?,. .; s . * *
. . f . ;. , ,
'1e.-
. .. r i. :. . . m, .. -.,'r..,,. .....
y .gf
.~ .\. . .,*-. .
* . . . g, ,..-
- 2 6. . t. .
; .P . ,
.- J 6 . :. . . ,
. ' 4 *: q . . * *..E ..
' . , . a. .
~ :.
, g
,. t .*.:
-. ' . . ' . +. M. ,' ~ ,:. ' .-a : s .
- 4 *'. : *. .
..~.,.: < . ..r..:..>~..
cct M.. E. D.w.s. .. .e.,.
. .a...
. < ~: ..
,,' '.w*".w'.u...,a.w.
. . . . . . . .. g, A. yor.-.o.n.un :. ~...,_...,u'.,..._.
.. ..e. a.
.s..
% .G.i :.:.: :.. . .,.:.. :. r. ' W. J, Friedrich .
. . . . ' v. ;. ; . r. . .
. w . : '.y , .
..o.....
L' J i,,i'.,4, ..y.O.,,'. <. ..i.; je. * !s; y, p, Meys.es .
- 6%. .d..*v ..' M.W.. . P.- .W., W.A.,.i:. ..* ' . . , 0py 4. @. . .3fd.i.
.. h.
. *l
? }:. *j. f. -
. ; r '* . n .' Q, G ggggy ..v.~
-= . #.
f.eSa. .
.:':.'.Q'.'..T.*?'Wl .i,*"h*'R [.'? W.'?='-?'Q.y .
. ... . y:'L.yrf~:!M'?l.y *f9f. Tyty. ...'K.
.p;^*q5. a::. .
-.. . ...t 3..G.
R..J. Ho1T .
~
..a . :.+.. : :. . . . .- " , . , v. .....':'..,.
.n....,,...
D. ...", ',. ..:.'; /. W.
'~ h.e: - ,
L. Roberts *
,e -
..n s- 3
.,..,....i..,e...,,..
.. '.. . r..i... . . . ... .
. . ..m.... .
v 3 -.*.N.
. , ; y .%. . a f. . w... . 3 .
. .;s .., v: :. . . ; . .. . , ...... ..,,.;a.. ..
.;: ~.h ::e. : :. :.,%.. <.a..-
7 . .
. u.. .+. .h'.. L :. .L... w ::, .;.,:s. m .:n. .
.. ..;,. :u . .. . . . . .:4. 0a. r 4:.t.a..
...:n
.s .se , v -
... s .. , . - . r;. ;. -. . a .. .,,u . w
..a...s
- v. . . . .. . .
t u..,% W.n '
.*. , ~ a .l .m. .. .
. .: . ; .. s;.;. .. ;:
3 Q:.
- a.e ,1 h;; s .n,g.
^.
.:3.?: . , _g,..Q . .p.ssU n.r i,.
e- .-
. .,, .4 . ..*s Q...b** *
- .9
u h.; g G.;.' .G,.c..u..:.:.,
.....- -n. .. .;e..- . d..:.".M
.',*, ~ .j e . . - .
,s .
e * : .'f
- .. .ur .-e .- . , , - ....-
i , : . .. . < * . ~ . . * ~ . ~ . .
; ,.e? s ; .- : s. . . .a .
.. . t r ,. . .. c. .' ..*e . .
l T W*1'
"**.*:"*'*'""~ ~ . .s: .***
r.?*: .:n.7??.V*.*?*=9
- . ,.':??*giu( '***".:1 **1t?!" "'.'~.yb.:~**.t~t'T*at*:*f?; % . . ;. . , y s i .: . . .Sltr '. r
.* : o. I;,.. '~.~.~.~.
. .. *:T* r. . *~ ? **?-l? .'r W .*.-'e "'W;. j '?; .'),* .?
c;)*. eg;ll2 ,..; .r~ .- " ' . \ 6. t .*' ' :. 6 :.,l . ,.** *,*. rg . i; ; *?.*.xs . . . ~;. .s .{.1:. . Tj .~fs y:.t
'. . s* G .r _ g.*...s.,, .
_n,,,, e . ;, r *
.*. . ,h,, ..:. , r. ; '. .* l * .. . ': - t 9, . .; ,
,a .. .* .<s .. . <.;.. . ;cjr p M.
.. .e.,-
' ' . ,
- I;,g -: .. ..,., ,, :, ',
,..!. y ,*2 . . ',
. . f.;', , 4*a l Y$. [~ ?[;;p ; ,
- b. 'ec.. , ', ;. ', , .
E'
. ;( ( 4.(,F;/l..;. !
* . ; .i. .
..y..
~ : .,'. . , ',* ,,.f' . .: .~. ;;,. ;; .t . z
. ..... .;.c.. <~.s.:
. .:s .' . a. n
. . . .p. .. :r. .: , : ..; ': . , .v '.,.
9;s . . . k .
. >:: z .,&. . e.,;. ,,,, u ,
s .. . . , . y ~f.c ,. - .. ..Q ,, 1. :. ,
,' .r ,::: .
p.w: y w ..' ..
* .L.s 2. . v ~:. .
. .. >*. .. ,' .*. .. . ....*, ,c's. . ,*e.,d..... .
l .s . . . ;. .; . 'e: . 4 ' .s .p i.*. - Q .* * ' . . s. ...
. p... .
.. ., e
; . ,: !Q 4. g
*?, ,
l ,.. . V '
. . . .3. ; .
*r . : g s [. .s : . ,'. .:f ed. i
- - 4. ' .. .c.=* .. . :.. . ?. t :* ? .::,. ~.% r ;.,f,Q.}.* :'*;'. ) .*. ** ..
r*. t.*...,..*.r*
* . i. . gC **. .. ;. "
*.- .- 5..
. : /, , . ,...s . . */6 .'
.= .. / .,g, s , , , s.
.ar . #.
.s .. .
1 en
..,.s..- ... *
. . t= .
. *.. m# ' 4.t...
i . .e . '.. . . * . s. . .
- s
.. ./ ../ . *.
>.<t.
<....,'=: . ..* 1..- ....,s....*.'.a;,.,
- 5..
.e .*.*.p=..
v,- ,. .*.4 .i
- A; :-l. *. . .,s. f ; .* .. g
, . . "e.; s ;.. .:..^* - ,. . .:. .,. ,s l ,. 1.*- 3 . e,s
, ;. .eac..; y, 8 ::
.= .* ... .
- p. . s .l . n
..f ; ; .. ,
. . . ',. ..gj
, j. . . .. ,
' . + 1
. , , . . . = .. .
. :.. , , .., ?. 7. .. *. .
?* .~): . .'.; , ;. l"; * ; .-:s .. ,' ,.: ;:...r . : -.: - 1.e.~.g';.:. ',lJ.'. * *~ '.,h * :. h ' . .. . 7.
. ; :.% s * .., . :.. *... !:. -: .:, s.sz.. :.. ;..e. .m,)<:i. . , .: . ;
t
. . .. . , . , . ; , m:'. . 3 ,.ns..;.. . *v.s. . ;, . :. ..%,.*, ...i.v.;; *~.. .... . u .?1....
l . g, .
~ .
. !e .ie
. . ~;.. . n*. '.g *. : .- , . - -#;.
! l. '.. ! ! ' . .' . . ... * *
~; .
c ... ..; >j,.T:;," ,.si;.Vl.: . . . ; . ; .. . n7'y'
-.. .y .S...
. - e.l c.. .:.:.;; ' A:s.y, * .. ' lcs. rr.,..s. ,: . .. ,..:,'. .,. ..y . .t 4.? . .'F,.
...,/Jd J
.
- p
. ; . ..-. .o. s... a.;:. .s.;..a..n. o. 4:.; ?:.3;.M:j.C: :a.:.;;. ;* L:.'t.sJ i Ud %;e, *.~2 *e
': . . .. e >.s . , G..a,f.i.Gi.s.>;a*.M.:a.4s.G. ..c'
.s. m.
. . . . . . ~. ,,*.. .......
.,.. . .. .. i,
- .. s;l * . y. ' . .; . . ( .p. . . ..:,. -:.-* :. .-}: ...?. r;gf :;.; Q.;;,.. ,?; .:. -::. .;. : . e .
! .. ;.s
, . V..
.? ,. f,:. " ".'. h { :. ,: . .; . 7
. r . ,, . . ;. .
. .. sr . . . : .; .
- f. .. . . .
.. . .~" . . .s , .. . . . . .
l 9,: : ,. -: ~~~~::~~pr~..<m my~v- y-r ~.:;.n.:. ysym_se;_ y*:qgrg.y .,g;y;r ~(es-
..s :,-e .:~ ~~n..
s.. . . . . c. r... .. ., ; ,. c. 1. . .
. . , . . . . . ,. . . ... . . .. . .,?.,....
. ... .;. . .u
- i. .
a .. .:w;.
....... .:. .. .. . .:. . . . . ,c.,.u.,............,.(..g.,
;. ,.3v
, .3 .,.. . . .,,
.. 7 ;;; ..- , . . , ,_ ; ,,
....,. . . . . .,. ~
;. . . .. q. ; .- . . .; ..,.. n.e:...
...,<..,.c.,,_... ..... . .
;. w. . .
, .... ~. .... . ua.> . . . .
. . w.. ...,. .,. . . , :/. ; . . . . . . . .... . o.. .
s
,,. . .. ..v.,
<aa.,; . c .e.. .; w.:. ... .... .. a a.%ir.w.. . . .. ..:. 1f.,;;
m .. ;;; . . ...a..:4..
,. .. A.,,.
. /,,J.:.
l . .e W. . . . . . . -
. . , . . .. t o s . -:i.,,gfe,, ;;.,,y e..;,n;t:. ; .;.s -;, ,,;,is., ., c.f,.
- .. g * .
- ..;.
1 .
., l, . ; . ,. .
s.".; g .,. ;: .. . . ,., ,,,;.. . ,; .. ,; -
.l.. . , . ., .e
-, ,. ,., j:; ; . .
..',y: ,..
l _ -- ..m -
.,- s* _ ,
D. E. Willinsa . Nove=ber 30, 1976 EB 16 - -
, E. v. Knox ,.
KB 16 Telephone Conversation with Bill Sehviers on 11 /20/76 -
+ .
Bill Schwicrs of COE called cie this morning and it was obvious from the questions and concems that he expressed that he was trfing to detemine my degree of support for Bill Friedrich. Mr. Schwiers ' , concerns were: r I
- 1) ERC audit item which found " Installation inspection procedures
' had not been established which would verify confor=nnee to pro-visions established in design doct=:ents". This pertained to conduit hangers and bonding to the station grounding system. l Mr. Schviers was also concerned that Kaiser Engineers was perform-i ing design calculations to dete=.ine which was the proper hanger to use.
- 2) Chen es in cuslity Assurance persennel. Eved though Mr. Schriers admitted to being infomed of the changes (Kaser and MacLau6hlin) .
he indiccted he had not given his specific approval. He slao cecsented that the Zi mer job was not a place to put people that coc:e and go to other projects or employers.
- 3) x-nav of urene weld in Centsineent. I do not know the full story .
on this but Scbtiers indicated that the mistake was can-ht. Because i of this, he suspects other weld x-rays. He has requested that CGE be fut en distribution for all x-ray reader-sheets and stated that i an independent review was going to be made by CCE or their repre-sentative. . I)t Accept-as-te decisions on veld . defects. Mr. Schwiers ende the i statc=ent that Kaiser cuality personnel alone was making " accept- + ( as-is" decisions on veld defects and in seme cases was overriding ' l " reject" decisions made by the x-ray lab personnel. Accept-as-is . I decisions are controlled by procedure, QAP #16. It requires a MR7 decision by the CGE QA Engineer, KII QA Engineer, CGE sponsor Engineer, and when required the S&L Engineer. ' a- ..
$) Assicnment of Civil Inn e tors. Mr Schwiers expressed conce m over Kaiser in31ncers still having 3 civil inspectors assis:ned to the job. He felt this could be reduced to one, and the other two replaced by mechanical or electrical inspectors.
e
a., T. . - - t i . D E, Williams Nov. 30, 1976 ,
- 6) locate raiser & CGE Quality Personnel tocether. Schwiers '
coc: ment was that since CGE had the final responsibility for the qual:ty of the plant and the fact that CGE and Kaiser should be striving towards a co=on goal of building the plant to the dra. rings and specifications, it seemed to him that a benefit could be achieved by being physically located together
, ' making it easier for he and his people to be kept informed of day to day activities.
7): Have Insrecticn Persennel Report to Construction. Mr. Schwiers expressed his opinion on organization that inspection personnel should report to Construction Engineering for control and Quality
. Engineers should audit and surveil for assurance that things are done properly.
My coments regarding the above were: .
- 1) NRC Audit Item. This will be looked into to determine the reason for not having an inspection plan during the hanger ,
installation. , 2) Chances in CA Personnel. I feel we have the* responsibility to staff the job as required and unless we previously had agreed to obtain CGE approval when changes in personnel occur, I see no reason to obtain their approval for changes in personnel at - this level.
- 3) X-Ray Wrene Weld. This one error was caught. (There are many
' checks and balances in the QA system). We should not make the . whole welding operation suspect because of it. This is witch hunting at its worst and can only hurt CGE's Zimmer plant in the eyes of EC, anti-nuclear personnel, etc. ,
%) Accept-as-is decisions. I doubt very much that we are violating the ERB procedure as outlined in QAP #16, but I would be interested in Bill Friedrit:h's comment.
; s -
, 5) Assienment of civil ins m etors. Another case of CGE trying to tell Kaiser Engineers how to manage the job. .,
- 6) Kaiser and CGE QA Personnel located tocether. This will not I work and I told Mr. Schwiers it wouldn't. My argument was that Kaiser Quality personnel would not know who was calline the l' shots, that there would be_ confusion as to assicn=ent of respons-iFilities and ths.t the,,re would,ga great tendney and very easy for CGE personnel to direct Bill 6iE6ich's people to do '
u'ssMie~dbled activities that do not support','The ~froductidschedule. l h e
- g ..
O e l . . ~ ~ - - --
D. H. Willia =s . -3 - Nov. 30, 1976
- 7) Jnsvaetien re ertint to constructich.
I disagree with this type of an organization and so doe: 1CCFF.50, Appendix B. . I agreed to have a meeting on Dece ber 9th with Bill Schwiers to further discuss his concerns about our Quality Assurtnee prograr.. This has since been changed with our phone eenversation with Don Sahlberg and Bill Friedrich. ** -
.. EVK/dsr
. t
. ~.
. t
?
,e ,
t
. . t i
l
- - . =_ -- - ,- - .-
s ' D. H. williams . Nov. 30,1976
- 7) Insreetion retortir.c to constructich. I disagree with this type of an organization and so does 1CCFR50, Appendix B. .
I agreed to have a meeting on December 9th with E111 schwiers to further discuss his concerns about our Quality Assurance program. This has since been changed with our phone conversation with Don Sahlberg and Bill Friedrich. ** -
. EVK/dsr t.
I a
. o-r .
i
- q . 9 l
l - -
N'd#ea-(7 4 g
. Summary of Investigation into The Disposition of Nonconformance Reports Between February 10, 1981 and August 6, 1981, the NRC staff reviewed a sample of one hundred voided Nonconformance Reports (NR). A sanple of twenty NRs taken f rom the one hundred atenpth 'Anf O
" phe-ef those NRs provided to the NRC by Kaiser QC inspectors during site interviewsy was selected for an ex-
' tensive review of their disposition. A summary of ,these findings is as ~
~ follows -
- a. Control Number (CN) 5412-This NR was written by Inspector C. Dum-ford. On February 2, 1981, after craft personnel had violated a QC hold tag. This NR was initiated by the inspector, was con-curred in by his immediate supervisors and forwarded to the KEI 0A Manager. %e-Reg %u :: % es% gat 4cn-showed e we - ^=t [
was never entered into the Kaiser nonconformance reporting system.
- b. NR-2836 - This NR was initiated by Rex Baker, Inspection Supervisor, l when ar, auditor found there was no radiograph of the final weld pass for weld LIS737. This NR was dispositioned as " accept-as-is" set-ANDMAtVnD y A10 reviewedg by the Kaiser Material Reviewe Board (MRB) 4RPthe Authorized o.
Nuclear Inspector (ANI g he.- Region III inspectors found that u et the NR was improperly dispositioned as accept-as-is because there fuCCCA.O AlfDC&WN , was no til p the final weld pass. The acceptance of this con-dition is contrary to ASME Code Requirements.
- c. NR-E-2466 - On January 3, 1980, Kaiser QC inspectors initiated this '-
NR after they identified one hundred and twenty-four nonconforming [.dit /
$2&" ~fR$h*1l G - . welds and improcerly embedded bolts on pipe support hangers in Deisel Generator Rooms A, B, and C. This NR was voided on June 30, 1980 with a comment that "each hanager listed will be reissued on a separate NR". On February 12, 1981, NRC inspectors found that of the one hundred and twenty-four pipe support hangers only twenty-five had been redispositioned on other NRs. Seven months after the commitment ninety-nine of the one hundred and twenty-four k 7
nonconforming hangers had not been reissued as stated W P X on the voided NR.
- d. CN-4389 - On January 3, 1980, B. J. Luttman, Kaiser, QC Inspector tWA.f g initiated ap nonconformance report wW un- - -d ered * * -- 4 to Y nemusuSE20 identified nonconforming conditions on electrical cables, A A 0
antr cable trays and hangers in the auxiliary building. This NR was W voided on December 2, 1980 and the reason for voiding wasgalthough some conditions required reinspection /FA - the QC inspector x had left the jobg ~ ~ - = m em This NR was found misfiled in the Kaiser Inspection Report (IR) file.
- e. CN-5477, 5476, and 5479 - On February 23, 1981, James Ruiz, QC In- ,
spector, Kaiser, initiated Nonconformance Reports 5476, 5477, and 5479 which identified nonconforming welds on dry wel support steel in the primary containment building. The Kaiser NR Log Book reports t l' these NRs were voided on February 27, 1981, as " void not issued". j These NRs were provided to the NRC by Inspector-Ruiz, however a i copy of these NRs could not be found in the Kaiser files. l
7
.The results of the investigation of these NRs are reported in the following section. A summary of the investigative findings for the remaining NRs audited is listed below.
A
- a. NR E-5108 - This NR was written on May 19, 1980 N To PCCum4!N7 m-a-ww--- : t/fC LACd ON A n
..w-*"r3Wisl3Rt> heat number for a four foot long pipe piece installed in the residual heat removal system.
The NR was voided on June 20, 1980, because acceptable documenta-tion was found to establish traceability for the pipe piece. Re-gion III inspectors reviewed this documentation and found no justi-fication for adding this heat number to the documentg_' '- ' "' ; M!TIL b. A NR CN-4309 - This NR was written 44-^"' L -- W , , ^-i =pec w , p 90 CecernhW erfites, on January 7,1980 _ ~ -]J: .J unacceptable weld fitup on plates affixed to the reactor pedestal structure. This NR, al-though initiated by the inspector, was not entered into the Kaiser nonconformance reporting system. Ul f NR CN-kO59*59"and 4930, and 4931 - These NRs were written on July
- c. ;
i 22, 1980 and July 9, 1980 after inspectors identified nonconforming , weldsinthedehelgeneratorrooms. These NRs w-r- 4 ;-4 { not entered into I t were " voided as not issued"ya A the Kaiser nonconformance reporting system and a copy of these NRs ; could not be found in the Kaiser files. -
- d. NR E-1777 - On April 3, 1979, this NR was initiated by a Kaiser QC
inspector after he found that eseapemeuPr-P'
- ear. t ' amM*t matre55tes no weld rod issue could be located to verify what weld ust. C jNk5AMWAM O'Sfb3/170M6fD,WE kN filter metal W[f'h'& usecg This NR was initially g to cut out R@
and " reworked",* however it was voided on April 30, 1979, after a n I rod slip was located for the weld. Region III inspectors reviewed v1/Ll%EO this NR and the rod slip"as justification for voiding the NR. They THA~ found that this rod slip does not specifically identify abet weld . p kt% 9ffS 1t3 B d
- W - - " . ssuett=in and this NR ons improperly voided.
n
- e. NR CN-5122 - On October 16, 1980, this NR was initiated by a Kaiser QC inspector after he wrote Surveillance Report 2800 which reported that the outer coating on flexible conduit was splitting for some unknown reason. On January 2, 1981, this NR was voided with a LT :s4UGUMC6 t/
comment "see SR2800" which the 3 report used to initiate the 4 . It was found that this NR was improperly voided because an NR cannot beRGtl/TED te; . U t.C mnaSS"SR, a lesser threshhold of QC reporting.
^
COUR In addition the nonconforming condition ie, flexible conduit3splitting A-was not corrected o m n n === h
- f. NR-E-2233 - On November 21, 1979 this NR was initiated by Kaiser QC inspector after he found no evidence of QC inspections for a weld in the plant's service water system. A QA engineer initially i directed the weld ap be " reworked"f*howeverj the NR was voided on January 24, 1980 by Floyd Oltz, Document Control Supervisor. Region III inspectors found that Oltz had improperly annontated the form 1
by deleting previously required l QC hold points. 94 l
RW - & L
. g. NR-NRC-0001 - On February 11, 1981 an NR was initiated by a QA D Y inspector wiw identifisemiA nonconforming structural steel welds in the primary EM containment area. This NR was returned to the
/Notc+tti30 inspector unmarked and a file search N that it had never been A
entered into the Kaiser nonconformance reporting system.
- h. NR-E-1661 and E-1662 - On February 8,1979 these NRs were written h v saisisk identifM nonconforming welds on pipe support hangers. The MtM fMNotwh' y af48 NRs were voided on November 11,1980 35mmse the hangers in question A
would all be" reinspected after a design analysis". Region III inspec-tors found that decided not to reinspect the hangers AMb not affected by the design changes, w *-*% voided NR was never reopened to e a repaire d support hanger welds not affected by the redesign. TQ i. NR-E-2996 - On February 2, 1981, this,NR was written y record e that futt penetration welds on five T-quenchers in the main steam relief system were found to have a lack of penetration at the back-ing ring. The Licensees'achitect-engineer directed the NR be dis-Aufft-45'/C positioned as g sd after an acceptable ultrasonic examination mee of Madsmsempre all five of the questioned welds. The NR was improperly closed on March 17, 1981 without the completion of a ultrasonic examination of one of the questioned T-quenchers.
- j. NR-E-2191 - On November 2, 1979, this NR was inftiated for lack of material traceability for a consumable insert on weld K-253 in the closed water cooling system. This NR was voided on February 22, 1980
4 % y g /)r7 [ after a weld rod slip was found. There was no MRB or engineering evaluation of this decision and the KE2 form (weld rod issue slipp anonQCdocumentywasusedtoprovideevidenceofQCinspections for this weld. The results of investigation into the prneamding NRs is appended to this report as Exhibit . I I i t 4 i e t I
~
i t i
,c,--- . - -.. . .,, ,,, n. --_ , - - - - . - - . . - - - ----,n., -- . , . - . . . - - . - , . - , ~ . . . . - . . ~ . .-_.--..n . . . , - .
e a i ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np The RIII inspector reviewed approximately five radiographs for each of the 1 67 welds. No unacceptable indications were identified in either the welds I or the adjacent material.
! 2.04 The inspectors reviewed radiographs --y --i of M prefabricated x A
pipe (shop) welds for acceptable radiographic testing (RT) technique, weld quality, and documentation. 7 NW WJ W$lS $ 0Nl$fNOb'S W YA// E/VO h
" = - 4 Review of Pipe Weld Radiographs Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results i
1 1 IFC14CA851(2346) A 0.322 8-5/8 1-2 7/76 NID* 4-1 NID 2-3 NID B I-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID C 1-2 NID 4-1 NID l 3-4 NID I
- NID--no identified deficiencies.
r . ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np 1 s . 8' [* Tablej(continued)
] Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results IFC14CA8118A(2410) A 0.322 8-5/8 1-2 1/76 NID 2-3 NPS**
3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS B 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS j 1HG47A21/2-25 A 2,142 4-1 NPS 3-4 NPS D 1-2 NPS 4-1 NPS I \ 1DG14AA8-57 G 0.280 6-5/8 4-1 10/76 NPS 3-4 NPS E 1-4 NID 3 3-4 NID
**NPS--no penetrameter shim.
o s
, ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np
$.10 Tablep(continued) v Pipe Pipe- Outside Radiograph 4
Weld Weld Thichnecs Diameter Area of RT f i Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results 1FWO2AB23-85-55 A 1.756 23-7/8 1-2 7/75 NID 2-3 NID 6-1 NID B 1-2 NID 4-5 NID 6-1 NID 1FWO2C23-83-29 B 1.725 24 1-2 12/75 NID 2-3 NID 6-1 NID D 1-2 NID 3-4 NID 6-1 NID C 6-1 NID ILP02A127(1622) B 0.375 12-3/4 4-1 NID 2-3 NID 1-2 NID ll
, ZIMhER/000 DRAFT /np h.60 Tablep(continued) i s
l i ~ s
' ~ '
Pipe '
! Pipe Outside Radiograph:
Weld Weld Thickness 4 , Diameter Area of RT s' Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results i t e E 4-1 ~ NID - 3-4 NID 1-2 NID ILP02A127(1622) F 0.375 12-3/4 1-2 NID 3-4 NID
~ , ,
4-1 '- NID ' ' IDG18AC823(3213) B 0.322 8-1/8 1-2 NID 3-2 NID l 4-1 i NID ~ ! C 4-1 NID i 1-2 1, NID s 3-4' 'NID D .1-2 s NID' 1 , 1
. 2-3 NID i
'4 1 ' , ' NID l
l
? A' m,.
,, .s ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np 3
- g. 4
~
~
i ' 6, l' Table / (continued) l
- J ,
s i 3 .
,, s' .* ipe
}
Pipe Outside Radiograph
! Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT (in.)
i Identification Seam (in.) Interest Date Results IFC01B128 , A 0.396 10-3/4 1-2 NID
, 2-3 NID 4-1 NID B 1-2 NID
. 3-4 NID 4-1 NID C 1-2 NID 2-3 NID
, 4-1 NID D 1-2 NID 3-4 NID b
t 4-1 NID IDG18AA850 A 0.353 8-5/8 1-2 NID
. 3-4 NID 4-1 NID e
f
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np f', to
;' Table je (continued) i l .f Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results B 1-2 NID 4
4-1 NID 2-3 NID C 1-2 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID 1FC01CB105 M 0.365 10-3/4 1-2 3/76 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID N 1-2 NID 4-1
- NID i
3-4 NID P 4-1 NID 1-2 NID 3-4 NID I
, -_ .. .=.
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np l
- S .no Tablej((continued) i Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph
, Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results 1 i Q 1-2 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID T 0.237 4-1/2 3-4 3/76 NID
'4-1 NID 2-3 NID U 1-2 NID 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS S 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 1FC02AA812(F2305) A 0.322 8-5/8 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID
. ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np
- f. *
- Tableg(continued) l Pipe I
Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT f Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results B 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID D 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID C 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID IFC02AB817(2310) A 0.322 8-5/8 1-2 1/76 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID B 2-3 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np 6.$0 Tablejj(continued) I l i 1 Pipe i Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results C 2-3 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID F 1-2 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS 1FC06B4128(2413) B 0.237 4-1/2 1-2 7/76 NPS 2-3 NPS 4-1 NPS IFC06B4128(2413) A 0.237 4-1/2 1-2 7/76 NPS 2-3 NPS 4-1 NPS C 1-2 NPS 4-1 NPS 2-3 NPS ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np 4, *
- Tablep(continued)
{ i Pipe I
; Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT , . Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results i
D 1-2 NPS 4-1 NPS 3-4 NPS 1FC29B684(2380) A 0.280 6-5/8 1-2 3/76 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS B 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID C 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID . G 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np
- f. l0 Table){(continued) t 1
1 I - ? Pipe l 4 Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT t Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results 1HG07A 2 12A(3444) A 0.203 2-7/8 1-2 1/77 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID B 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID C 1-2 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID F 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID J . 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np
- 6.
- 0 Tablep(continued) ls i
Pipe i Pipe Outside Radiograph
- Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results H 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID 11401A35(3529) D 0.216 3-1/2 4-1 2/77 NPS 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS A 1-2 NID 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS 2-3 NPS B 1-2 NPS j 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS l
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np
/ so Table {' (continued) l i
Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT i Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results 1FC39CA621(2314) D 0.280 6-5/8 1-2 1/76 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID B 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID G 1-2 NID 2-3 NID
- 3-4 NID 4-1 NID E 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np i
- faf Table 3 (continued)
\
i l , I l Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph i Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results A 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID F 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NID J 4-1 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID I-2 NID 1FW01AA193016(960) A 1.411 20 1-2 2/75 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-5 NPS 5-1 NPS l.
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np 10 Table (continued) i Pipe l Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT 4 Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results B 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-5 NPS 5-1 NPS 1FWOIAA193015(959) A 1.411 20 1-2 2/75 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-5 NID 5-1 NID B 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID l 1FC02AB8-18(2311) A 0.322 8-5/8 1-2 3/76 NPS i 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS l
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np
/3 Table {(continued) 1 1
Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results B 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID 1FW01B23835(949) A 6-1 2/75 NID 1-2 NID l 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-5 NID 5-6 NID 1FW01B23834(948) A 1.725 24 1-2 9/75 NID 4-5 NID 6-1 NID ( B 6-1 NID t i 1-2 NID l 2-3 NID 3-4 NID l l
.g - u -_ -- - ,-g-. - ,-,
ZImfER/000 DRAFT /np
! f.
TableK(continued) i
.I
^! 4 i Pipe l Pipe Outside Radiograph
, Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest *Date Results E 1-2 NID i
2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-5 NID 5-6 NID 6-1 NID F 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NID 1HP05131028 A 0.396 10-3/4 1-2 8/74 NID 3-4 NID 2-3 NID ILP05A1218(1634) A 0.375 12-3/4 1-2 7/75 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID
.- =-
. ZI!9fER/000 DRAFT /np f.'O Table /)(continued)
'l i
Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph
; Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT 'f Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results B 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID D 4-1 NID 3-4 NID 2-3 NID 1-2 NID ILP02B102(1616) A 0.593 10-3/4 1-2 8/75 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID B 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID C 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID
O e ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np t
- 0 Tablefj(continued) l i
1 1 Pipe i Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT 1 Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results ILP02B104(1618) A 0.593 10-3/4 1-2 5/75 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID B 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID 10G01AA122(368) A 0.687 12-3/4 1-2 4/76 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID B 4-1 NID 3-4 NID H 1-2 NID 2-3 NID l - 3-4 NID l
4
, ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np i -
Table 4 (continued) i i. Pipe I Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results IRD28CA1010(3491) B 0.593 10-3/4 1-2 7/76 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS ICY 01AB16504(3129) A 0.375 16 4-1 4/76 NID 3-4 NID 1-2 NID B 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 N'.D C 4-1 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 1-2 NID
ZIMtfER/000 DRAFT /np i* Table 4 (continued)
- I 1
j Pipe l 4 Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification' Seam -(in.) (in.) Interest Date Results D 4-1 NID 3-4 NID 2-3 NID 10G09AC221(2428) C 0.375 22 1-2 8/76 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID i l 4-5 NID D 5-6 NID 1DG09AC221(2428) D 0.275 22 2-3 8/76 NID 6-1 NID 1DG10AC2814 C 0.375 28 1-2 2/77 NID 5-6 NID 6-1 NID IDG10AC2813 C 0.437 28 1-2 2/77 NID 6-1 NID 4-5 NID
0 a ZIMMER/000 ~ DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued) i a
! Pipe i
t Pipe Outside Radiograph f Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT i l Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results 4 IFC-09B828A A 0.322 8-5/8 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID C 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID D 1-2 NID
- 4-1 NID 3-4 NID E 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID F 1-2 NID 2-3 _
NID 4-1 NID i l t
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued) l 1 i l
! Pipe I
j Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT t i Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results IFC09CA838 A 0.322 8-5/8 1-2 4/76 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID C 1-2 NPS
~
3-4 NPS 2-3 NPS 4-1 NPS B 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID D 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID F 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued) I
.I i
Pipe l l Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT I Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results 4 G 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS E 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID H 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS J 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np f Table 4 (continued) I l i Pipe i Pipe Outside Radiograph l Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results IFC12A8-29 C 0.322 8-5/8 1-2 6/76 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID D 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS E 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID K 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID F . 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np
. Table 4 (continued) 4 Pipe f Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results G 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID H 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID IHP01A204A(1727) A 0.375 20 6-1 11/75 NPS 5-6 NPS 4-5 NPS 3-4 NPS 2-3 NPS 1-2 NPS 1FC14AA866 B 0.353 8-5/8 1-2 5/76 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued)
I t l Pipe
! Fipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results C 1-2 NPS 4-1 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS E 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS .
A 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID F 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID G 0.280 6-5/8 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID l I
~~
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued) 4 i Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT 'i Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results D 0.353 8-5/8 1-2 NID i 4-1 NID 3-4 NID IMS08AA10310(3660) A 0.365 10.75 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS 1FWO2GB1849(2992) A 1.375 18 4-1 10/75 NID 3-4 NID 2-3 NID 1-2 NID G 1.000 12.75 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID I i-1 i I
o . ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np
! Table 4 (continued) 'i 1,
Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT i Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results C 1.375 18 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS J 1.000 12.75 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS H 2-3 NPS 1-2 NPS l 3-4 NPS D 1.156 18 1-2 NPS 4-1 NPS l l 3-4 NPS i 2-3 NPS
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued) i Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT
! Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results i
IMS09AB10320(3665) A 0.365 10.75 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS 1FWO4AB110057(979) A 0.840 11 1-2 1/75 NPS 2-3 NID l 3-4 NID 4-1 NID B 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS C 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued) f Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seas (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results l IHP06B420(1738) A 0.437 4-1/2 1-2 3/76 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NPS B 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 h7S ( C 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID D 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID I . __ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - . , - - - - - - - -
ZIMfER/000 DRAFT /np s
,1
.\
3 s
"\
Table 4 (continued)
~\. ; ,-.
' ~
. . s l :-. _t'
\
.N' t
t - e r ' 1; (* i t 1 Pipe ' 3 l Pipe Outside Radiograph
., s , i Weld Weld Thickness Diameter area of RT j -
s' ' Identification Seam (in.) (in.) , I'nterest , m Date Results , 3 i p IHP01A203(1725) A 0.375 20 2-3 -;I 76 i
/ NPS' 1-2 ,
NPS
' ^
2-4 - s NPSI 4-5 HPS 5-6 NPS 6-1 ' NIS L 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 6-1 NID D 1-2 NID l 2-3 NID l l 6-1 NID l
?
6-1 NID , 4-5 NID 1-2 dID
's ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued) 'i i
1
;7 .
Pipe 3{ ,, Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld , Weld ihickness Diameter Area of RT si' , Identific^a tion s Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results H 1-2 NID 5-6 NID 4 6-1 NID J 6-1 NID 5-6 NID 3-4 NID IMS08AC10307(3637) A 0.365 10-3/4 1-2 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID B 1-2 NID 4-1 NID i 3-4 NID 1HP03A1415(1736) F 0.437 3-1/2 1-2 10/76 NID r 2-3 NID s
, 3-4 NID 4
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued) i l
}
q Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph i Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT l Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results i A 4-1 NID i 2-3 NID 1-2 NID B 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID C 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID D 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID 1HP06C421(1739) A 0.237 4-1/2 1-2 2/76 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NID 4-1 NPS
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued) Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph
, Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results B 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID IMS01BB248(1020) A 0.875 24.25 1-2 1/75 h ,0 5-6 NID 6-1 NID B 1-2 NID 6-1 NID 5-6 NID IMS08AC10307(3637) A 0.365 10-3/4 1-2 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID B . 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued) 1
+
h I j Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results IMS08AB10312(3638) A 0.365 10-3/4 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID IMS08AD10141 A 0.427 10-3/4 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID B 1-2 NID 3-4 NID 4-1 NID C 1-2 NID 1 2-3 NID 4-1 NID j 1MS20B3169(2999) D 0.437 3-1/2 1-2 5/76 NPS 2-3 NPS l 3-4 NPS 4-5 NPS 5-1 NPS
ZI!9fER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued) . l l j Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph ! Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results E 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-5 NPS 5-1 NPS G 1-2 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-5 NPS 5-1 NPS 2-3 NPS C 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-5 NPS 5-1 NPS
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np l Table 4 (continued) i 1 i 1 l Pipe l j Pipe Outside Radiograph I Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT
! Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results A 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-5 NPS 5-1 NPS IMS20B3169(2999) F 0.437 3-1/2 1-2 5/76 NPS 2-3 NPS
- 3-4 NPS 4-5 NPS 5-1 NPS B 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS
, 4-5 NPS 5-1 NPS
^ - s ( ,- _
- ~ _
49 - l l _
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np 1 Table 4 (continued) i j Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results IMS09AB10140 A 0.427 10-3/4 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID B 3-4 IS 5-7 IS 4-5 IS 2-3 IS 1-2 NID C 'l-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID D 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID IMS10AA10145 E 0.396 10-3/4 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID
*IS--insufficient shim .
2 . e - . e ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued) I s j Pipe i' Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT s. Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results i D 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID E 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID A 1-2 NID 2-3 NID
'4-1 NID B 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID i C 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID
ZIMMER/000 DRA7/np Table 4 (continued)
-j
- 4 I
i Pipe i Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in ) (in.) Interest Date Results IMS11A10335(3647) A 0.365 10-3/4 1-2 NPS 2-3 NPS 3-4 NPS 4-1 NPS IMS08AB10316(3642) A 0.365 10-3/4 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 3-4 NID IMS08AC10112(1576) A 0.365 10-3/4 1-2 NID
'4-1 NID 2-3 NID B 1-2 NID
'I 4-1 NID 2-3 NID IMS01BA2411(1013) A 0.894 24-1/4 1-2 2/75 NID 2-3 NID 6-1 NID
^
, ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued) t
.I i t i
- Pipe i
Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results D 1-2 NID 3-4 NID , 6-1 NID E 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 6-1 NID IMS01BA2410 A 0.894 24-1/4 1-2 NID 6-1 NID 2-3 NID IMS11A10134 A 0.365 10-3/4 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID B 4-1 NID 3-4 NID 1-2 NID 1
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued)
.i 1
f
! Pipe Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results IMS11A10338(3650) A 0.375 10-3/4 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID IMS09AA10321(3666) A 0.365 10-3/4 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID 2-3 NID 1-2 NID 4-1 NID IMS08AD10298(3628) A 0.365 10-3/4 1-2 NID 4-1 NID l 2-3 NID IMS10ABIO127(1595) A 0.365 10-3/4 4-1 NID 3-4 NID 1-2 NID
...e ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued)
~}
i
, Pipe i
Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results C 4-1 NID 3-4 NID 1-2 NID B 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID D 1-2 NID , 4-1 NID I 3-4 i NID l IMS07AC10149A A 0.427 10-3/4 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID l B 1-2 NID 4-1 NID 2-3 NID l 1
r
, ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np Table 4 (continued) l i
l Pipe I
! Pipe Outside Radiograph Weld Weld Thickness Diameter Area of RT i
Identification Seam (in.) (in.) Interest Date Results C 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID IMS07AB10158A A 0.427 10-3/4 1-2 NID 2-3 NID 4-1 NID B 1-2 NID 2-3 NID i 4-1 NID l IMS01BA2416(1028) A 0.894 24-1/2 1-2 1/75 NID i 2-3 NID 3-4 NID j 4-5 NID 1 5-6 NID 6-1 NID t s
!, INV001/C FINAL /np 5.10 Cable Tray Hangers and Loading 4 5.10.1 Allegation l
" Shock-absorbing electrical tray hangers previously found unsatisfactory 4
l are still unsafe due to faulty welds, and electrical cable trays remain
'! dangerously full."
l 5.10.2 Background Information 9 f During an interview on February 26, 1981, Thomas Applegate and a GAP representative, Thomas Devine, indicated that Edwin Hofstadter was the source of this allegation. Hofstadter was employed by Husky Products, the Zimmer cable tray vendor, between February 8, 1973 and August 4, 1978. He wrote a letter of com-plaint that he sent to various parties on August 18, 1978. RIII personnel contacted him by telephone on September 9,1978, and he was interviewed by RIII personnel on September 29, 1978. His allegations, relating to materials i and welding on cable trays supplied to the Zimmer and Clinton sites, were investigated in detail by RIII, and the findings related to Zimmer are documented in IE Investigation Report 50-358/78-21. The RIII investigation l resulted in one item of noncompliance (a deficiency), but cable tray materials I and welding were considered acceptable. . During the 1978 RIII investigation, Hofstadter sent a series of letters i to the NRC (dated September 30, October 9, 19, 20, 31, Esceaber 15, 1978, 1 (
, INV001/C FINAL /np and February 11, 1979) stating his concerns and expressing dissatisfaction with NRC investigation findings. On February 2, 1979, a public press con-ference was held in Cincinnatti wherein RIII personnel met with Hofstadter, a lawyer representing Ralph Nader, and representatives of Citizens Against A Radioactive Environment (CARE), an intervenor group, to discuss the NRC
, investigation.
At RIII's request, a vendor inspection of Husky Products was performed by Region IV personnel during February 12-15, 1979 (Report No. 99900356/79-01). 4 The inspection did not identify significant deficiencies (QA Manual lacked 4 l description of duties or policy statement, weld procedure 107 lacked i i welding parameters for metal under 1/4-in.). On March 9, 1979, CARE sent a letter to various media representatives, taking O issue with the RIII finding of cable tray acceptability. Subsequently, the Mississippi Valley Power Project (MVPP), another intervenor group, intreduced the acceptability of cable trays and cable tray loading as contentions in the Zimmer licensing hearings. These contentions were accepted for litigation,
, and extensive testimony by NRC, Husky Products, CG&E, Hofstadter, and MVPP personnel is documented in the hearing transcripts.
i l A review of the Atomic Safety Licensing Board hearing transcripts indicated that they did not reveal any significant information not included in the RIII investigation report. The conclusion of cable tray acceptability has not been altered.
~ ; , INV001/C FINAL /np Hofstadter made no allegations concerning cable tray hangers, and these were not supplied by Husky Products.
i A report (50.55e) was submitted to NRC by the licensee concerning cable tray hanger welding deficiencies on July 17, 1978. A followup report was sent to NRC on October 30, 1978 (QC-1027). Review of the licensee's corrective actions was performed during an inspection conducted during March 21-23, 1979. During that inspection, corrective action appeared I to be acceptable, but had not been completed.
. 5.10.3 Investigation i
1
; 5.10.3.1 Interview of Edwin Hofstadter Edwin Hofstadter was contacted by telephone on July 31, 1981. He stated his concerns dealt with cable tray (fittings) welding, and he had no knowledge of cable tray hangers. He expressed concern regarding cable tray loading at Zimmer.
5.10.3.2 Observations and Reviews Concerning Cable Tray Hanger Welds t i The following findings address the present review of allegation as expressed by GAP in their letter of December 19, 1980, concerning cable tray hangers and cable tray loading. RIII inspectors made visual inspections of both vendor and field welds on the following Superstrut cable tray hangers in the cable spreading room and blue switchgear room, and at an elevation of 473-ft in the auxiliary building.
j, INV001/C FINAL /np i- The following data was noted for the cable spreading room:
- 1. No. 14H11FEC145--no unacceptable weld discontinuities 1
- 2. No. 14H11FEC147--no unacceptable weld discontinuities
'j 3. No. 4H2FEC193--no unacceptable weld discontinuities; foot connection l
; covered with fireproofing i
i 4. No.15HIFEC160--no unacceptable weld discontinuities; foot connection l covered with fireproofing i i l
! 5. No. 70HFEC165 (cross brace member No. 23HV5FEC294)--welds had irregular profile, porosity, and undercut
! 6. No. 15H2FEC175 (second horizontal member from the top)--weld had undercut
- 7. No. 14H11FEC146 (cross member)--an apparent vendor weld had undercut and slag
8. No. 16HIFEC156 (weld marked rejected)--weld had spatter and undercut All of these welds were painted; therefore, the RIII inspector inspected for relatively large discontinuities only.
t
#- as-. e - - - - . - r*
!, INV001/C FINAL /np 1
The unacceptable welds identified on hangers 70HFEC165, 15H2FEC175, 14H11FEC146, and 16HIFEC156 were not controlled in any QA document. This
'd is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XV, and the Ma. H. Zimmer QA Manual, Section 15 (358/81-13-09).
l The RIII inspectors reviewed approximately 180 construction inspection plans i j (CIPs) and inspection records for the hangers in the cable spreading room (elevation 536 ft in the north section of the auxiliary building). The
, licensee stated that inspections documented on the CIPs also included vendor l welds, even though the records only reflected field welds. The vendor welds l were inspected because of repairs necessary to close the 10 CFR 50.55(e) report (#E-5) telephoned to NRC on July 17, 1978. The 10 CFR 50.55(e) report indicated that vendor welds on Superstrut cable tray hangers, which were used only in the cable spreading room (PW Industries hangers are utilized elsewhere and appear acceptable), did not meet the visual inspection requirements of AWS D1.1-1972. The CIP records and the 10 CFR 50.55(e) report indicate that all of the final field and vendor welds were reinspected after repairs were made to welds on more than half of the 141 hangers and were accepted in December 1980 and January 1981.
t I No inspection records were available to indicate that in process inspections
- of either the field or vendor welds were made to verify proper filler metal, weld procedure, welder's qualifications, surface conditions, etc., as i required by the AWS D1.1-1972 Code, Section 6. Certificates had been supplied by the vendor stating that the material met the purchase specifi-cation requirements. The RIII inspector requested the licensee to obtain the in-process and field weld inspection records for the hanger welds made 5-
, INV001/C FINAL /np 1
by the vendor (Superstrut). A letter dated May 1, 1981, from Midland-Ross Corporation to CG&E was provided to the RIII inspector on June 1,1981. The letter indicated that Superstrut had been acquired by the Midland-Ross Corporation in January 1978, and that no records could be located with respect to in process inspection of hangers supplied to Zimmer. 1 j Discussions with pertinent QC management and inspection personnel revealed i
! that the welds documented on the above CIPs had been inspected after having i
been painted. The licensee stated that field visual examinations of tray I
?
hanger welds were based on H. J. Kaiser Company Procedure No. SPPM 4.6, Revision 8, dated August 29, 1980, paragraph 5.1.3, which states, " Surface j condition--joint surfaces to be examined shall be cleaned and free from slag,
' i
; rust, are burns, paint, dirt, or other contaminants that would interfere with the examination." T,he licensee stated that paint (Galvanox) applied to the j hanger welds did not interfere with visual examination and, in some cases, I
actually highlighted discontinuities. AWS DI.1-1972 Code, Section 3.10.1, states, ". . . Welded joints shall not be painted until after the work has been completed and accepted...." i i The apparent lack of in process and adequate visual inspections of the above field and vendor hanger welds is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X, 1 ' and the W'. m H. Zimmer QA Manual, Section 10.1.2 (358/81-13-10). l The RIII inspector requested the design acceptance criteria that was used by QC to evaluate the undercut on hanger 15H2FEC175. The licensee provided 1 S&L Specification H-2713, Supplement 7, Standard EB-117, and H. J. Kaiser
. - ..~. , INV001/C FINAL /np 4
l 4 Procedure No. SPPM 4.6, Revision 8, paragraph 5.2.9, which allows up to 1/16-in. undercut on the cable tray hanger welds. The 1/16-in. criterion does not comply with AWS D1.1-1972, Section 3.6.4, which states, "For buildings and tubular structures, undercut shall be no more than 0.01 inch deep when its direction is transverse to primary tensile stress in the part that is undercut, nor more than 1/32 inch for all other situations." Further review of Procedure No. SPPM 4.6, paragraph 5.2, revealed other noted exceptions to the AWS D1.1-1972 code. These exceptions included fillet weld size and weld convexity. On March 5, 1981, S&L provided a documented investigation program of fillet weld size for P-W Industries cable pan hangers, purchase order No. 7070-25102. This program was
; performed by Gladstone Laboratory of Cincinnati to substantiate the design adequacy of the undersized fillet welds at the flare bevel joints of the cable pan hangers. The study was based on a sample of 95 welds '
cut from P-W cable tray hangers. The 95 welds were sectioned and etched to determine actual weld size and relative weld quality. Only one weld 9 was identified as rejectable due to a lack of fusion. Although this study may justify that the weld size was adequate where the weld penetration i t was not measurable by normal visual techniques, no justification was pro-vided t*o substantiate the exceptions to the AWS D1.1-1972 Code requirements concerning weld convexity and undercut. These deviations from the AWS Code are contrary to 19 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, the W' . H. s Zimmer FSAR, Table 3.8.2, and the W' m. H. Zimmer QA Manual, Section 3.3 (358/81-13-11).
, INV001/C FINAL /np The following data was noted for the blue switchgear room hangers (eleva-tion 525 ft and drawing E-96):
- 1. No. 1H029--no unacceptable weld discontinuities
- 2. No. SH25--foot connection covered with fireproofing; no visible I unacceptable weld discontinuities i
i
- 3. No. 5H30 (2)--no unacceptable weld discontinuities l 4. No. 1H077--no unacceptable weld discontinuities I
i
- 5. No. 1H079--no unacceptable weld discontinuities
- 6. No. 1H133--no unacceptable weld discontinuities
- 7. 2 Nos. SH19--no unacceptable weld discontinuities
- 8. No. 109HV4 (east and west sides)--had unacceptable weld discontinuities 4
that were controlled on construction inspection plans (records) l
- 9. No. 1H28-2--no unacceptable weld discontinuities
- 10. No. 1H28-1--no unacceptable weld discontinuities
- 11. No. 1H29--no unacceptable weld discontinuities 1
, INV001/C FINAL /np i
- 12. No. 5H30--no unacceptable weld discontinuities
- 13. No. 1H077--no unacceptable weld discontinuities
- 14. No. 1H133--no unacceptable weld discontinuities
- 15. No. SH19 (4)--no unacceptable weld discontinuities l
- 16. No. 5H3(12)--no unacceptable weld discontinuities t
- 17. No. 5H2(12)--no unacceptable weld discontinuities
- 18. No. 5H25--no unacceptable weld discontinuities; foot connection covered with fireproofing.
The following data was noted for elevation 473 ft auxiliary building hangers: ! 1. No. 5H009 (drawing E-91)--no unacceptable weld discontinuitica 1
- 2. No. 4H3 (drawing E-14)--no unacceptable weld discontinuities I
- 3. No. 2H1 (drawing E-14)--no unacceptable weld discontinuities l 4. No. 5H010 (drawing E-91)--no unacceptable weld discontinuities
- 5. No. 5H012 (drawing E-91)--no unacceptable weld discontinuities
. , INV001/C FINAL /np i
- 6. No. 6H1 (2) (drawing E-14)--no unacceptable weld discontinuities
- 7. No. 6H1 (1) (drawing E-14)--no unacceptable weld discontinuities Four to six welds were inspected on each of the preceding hangers.
Several of the tray hanger foot connections (where the hangers are attached to the structural beams) were covered with fireproofing and could not be inspected. Therefore, the RIII inspector requested QC inspection documan-l i tation to assure that the welds covered by fireproofing were acceptable. The licensee provided a copy of Surveillance Report (SR) No. 2893 dated January 8,1981, which stated that 94 of 179 (Superstrut) cable tray hangers in the cable spreading room have one or both foot connections covered with fireproofing. The SR requested clarification as to what QC should do since the foot connections had not been inspected. As of March 27, 1981, the SR had no disposition. This item is unresolved pending the resolution of the hangers identified
- in SR No. 2893 and any other hanger connections throughout the plant that l
I were covered before they were inspected (358/81-13-12). t 5.10.3.3 Observations, Reviews, and Interviews Concerning Cable Tray Loading The RIII inspector made field observations, reviewed and discussed site { control measures, and reviewed and discussed the design basis and verifica-tions regarding cable tray loading. Tray loading was considered in three l
. INV001/C FINAL /np I
i I . aspects: cable ampacity or thermal loading; physical weight loading; and the commitments in the Zimmer FSAR, Section 8.3.3.1. 1
- 1. The following cable tray routing points (nodes) were selected for the reviews and discussions:
l
- a. 1057A--yellow division / power tray--selected because of the high design index (DI) of 1.44 (see 5.10.3.3 paragraph 3 for explanation
} of design index). ? ! b. 2025A--blue division / power tray--selected because of the high DI of 1.46.
- c. 2023A--blue division / power tray--selected for verification of DI accuracy (DI of 1.18).
- d. 2038A--blue division / power tray--selected because of the high DI of 1.44.
- e. 2039A--blue division / power tray--selected during field observa-tions because of the appearance of being highly filled.
- f. 1073A--yellow division / power tray--selected for verification of l the number of cables installed.
- g. 2086B--blue division / control tray--selected during field observa-tions because of the appearance of being highly filled.
l
INV001/C FINAL /np i
. h. 1104B--yellow division / control tray--selected because of the high I
- ) DI of 1.54.
M 1 1 2. The RIII inspector and a licensee representative counted the cables in 1 j the following tray nodes and compared the counts with the number of cables
.]
listed in the S&L Cable Pan Loading Report, dated February 2,1981: Node Field Count Report Count i I i j a. 1057A 27 27
- b. 2025A 24 23 (see explanation below)
- c. 2039A 39 39 l
- d. 1073A 32 33 (see explanation below)
The Cable Pan Loading Report is a computerized periodical that gives the design status of cable tray loads. The report identifies individ-I ual cable numbers that have been specified to be routed through the segmented tray points (nodes). I , l The RIII inspector reviewed the H. J. Kaiser Cable Monitoring Report dated February 5,1981, and some cable pull (installation cards) to verify that the cables specified for tray nodes 1057A, 2025A, and 1073A in the Loading Report had actually been installed. For tray node 2025A, cable No. LL145 was found to be two individual conductors and, for tray node 1073A, the records indicated that cable No. VP210 had not yet been installed, which accounted for the discrepancies between the preceding ' field and report counts. No other discrepancies j
),
INV001/C FINAL /np l 'l were identified in either the design or installation reports and records fortraynodes1057A,2025A,2023A,2039A,and1073A.,Thus,thed$ sign i and installation records appeared to match the numbers of cables actually-installed in the plant.
- 3. The RIII inspector inquired how the computerized design index program correlated to Zimmer FSAR Section 8.3.3.1 (dealing with ampacity) and
; Section 3.10.1.2.3.c (dealing with physical weight limitations).
i i
~
{ a. FSAR Section 8.3.3.1 states the following: f I 8.3.3.1.1 In Trays All power cables to be used in ZPS-1 are assigned in accordance with Table 8.3-18. The tables for power cable loading are based on IPCEA [ Insulated Power Cable Engineers Association] Publication No. P-46-426.
, 8.3.3.1.2 Not In Trays The thermal ampacity of power and control cables with no part of their length in solid-bottom tray are in accordance with IPCEA P-46-426, with appro-priate rating factors applied for ambient, shields, and direct-current service.
INV001/C FINAL /np i i
.]
8.3.3.1.3 Fill The summation of the= cross-sectional areas of the cables shall not exceed 50% of the tray usable cross-sectional area or two layers of cables, whichever is larger, but not to exceed 60% of the cross-sectional area in any case. 1 . 1 Conduit is sized in accordance with Sargent & Lundy I Standard EDSB-10, Electrical Drafting Reference for
; Determining Conduit and Pipe Sizes, which limits conduit fill to the percentages established by the l
National Electric Code. FSAR Section 3.10.1.2.3.c states, " Cable tray loading of 40 psf (pounds per square foot) is used throughout."
- b. On March 17 and March 19, 1981, the S&L Assistant Manager of Electrical Engineering described the correlation between the FSAR and the design index program as follows:
l The power cable ampacity loading is based not on IPCEA P-46-426 (1962), but on IEEE Paper 70TP557-PWR (by J. Stolpe) printed in 1970, IPCEA P-54-440 (1975), which was based on Stolpe's Paper, and S&L Standard ESA-104a (revised November 1, 1972).
j . .
, INV001/C FINAL /np i
1 The Stolpe method bases ampacity on the depth-of-fill design of cables in the tray rather than on the percentage fill. S&L uses a 2-in, depth-of-fill as the basis for selecting a cable for a i j particular ampere load. (1) The 2-in, depth-of-fill design results in a major conservatism because of the following: (a) Load diversity--many cables carry current only intermit-1 I tently (e.g., valve operators, sump pumps, etc.). i 4 . I i (b) Cable size granularity--only a few cable types and l sizes are purchased, resulting in selection of over-sized cables for most services. This means many cables would be capable of carrying larger currents (rated) than those actually carried. (c) Design ampere margin--the design ampere loads used to select cables before the final equipment design data i is known are necessarily conservative (high). < 4 1
, (2) Because of the above conservatisms, the S&L design practices are as follows:
(a) Cables are routed into trays without limiting fill. (b) The resulting fill is monitored as the design proceeds.
a
, , INV001/C FINAL /np 4
i (c)- When the fill reaches a target level, the actual heat load is calculated and, if the heat load exceeds the
.4 allowable amount, sufficient cables are removed from the affected trays.
To accomplish steps (2)(b) and (2)(c), S&L uses the design index
- program. The design index is a measure of tray fill and is expressed j mathematically as follows
e sum of the (cable diameters)2 Design Index = Useable area of the tray + l - i where useable area (UA) equals tray width times design depth-of-fill 1 4 (design depth-of-fill is based on square cables) and 50% of the tray cross-sectional area. For 24 in. x 4 in. power trays, the total area equals '6 9 sq in, and useable area equals 24 in. x 2 in. equals 48 sq in. 2 DI = (d ) UA where E = suamation d = cable diameter This equaticin is consistent with the Stolpe method. " Percent Fill" is not consi c.ent with the Stolpe method because the depth of the tray is used ra*. bur than the depth of the cables in the tray. Percent fill is also based on the actual cable cross-sectional area rather than the
INV001/C FINAL /np l.1 square cable that is assumed in the Stolpe method. Expressed mathe-matically, Sum of cable cross-sectional areas x 100 Percent Fill = Total cross-sectional tray area where the sum of cable cross-sectional areas equals E(pi x r2 ) with r = radius of the cable and pi = 3.1416. Thus, i Percent Fill = ( xr x 100 gy,, The relation between design index and percent fill is therefore 2 E(pi x r ) x 100 Percent Fill = Total area Design Index 2 E(d ) Useable area since the total area (TA) equals 2 times the useable area (UA) and d = 2 x r. li t : 1 2 E[pi x ( ) ] x 100 2 E (d ) x 100 PF _ 2(UA) _ 2 DI 2 2 l E(d ) E(d ) l UA 1
= x 100 = 39.'%3 per DI l
I l l
. INV001/C FINAL /ap 2
J a Thus, for a 4-in.-deep tray: 4 39.3% Actual Fill = 1.0 Design Index = 2-in. design depth-of-fill (square cables) 50% Actual Fill = 1.27 Design Index = 2.54-in. design depth-
! of-fill (square cables) 60% Actual Fill = 1.52 Design Index = 3.04-in. design depth-of-fill (square cables) i 3
and for a 6-in.-deep tray: 39.3% Actual Fill = 1.0 Design Index = 3-in, design depth-of fill (square cables) Based on the preceding relationships between design index and depth of square cables, and the fact that S&L has used a 2-in. depth-of-fill as the basis of selecting cables for particular ampere loads, the i cables in tray nodes with a DI over 1.0 would have to be re-evaluated (} considering the increased depths. This item is unresolved pending completion of the reevaluations (358/81-13-15). The above design basis for cable ampacity was a deviation from the design (FSAR) that was not identified on any control document. This is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, and the Wm. H. Zimmer QA Manual, Section 3.6 (358/81-13-16). l l
4 INV001/C FINAL /np On March 17, 1981, the S&L Assistant Manager of Electrical Engineering stated that appropriate modifications to the FSAR would be submitted. Also, specific consideration would be given to the differing types of 4 cable insulations, addressed in the previously discussed publications (standards), when compared with the cable ins.ulations used in Zimmer. f 4. The RIII inspector reviewed S&L Instruction No. PI-ZI-10.1, Revision 0, I dated February 6,1978, paragraph 4.5, which states, "The Senior Elec-trical Project Engineer shall assign an electrical engineer to run thermal loading calculations for all power tray routing points with a design index exceeding 1.25. He shall compare these loadings, in watts per feet, with the watts per feet limits established for the design indexes involved." The RIII inspector requested the thermal calculations for tray nodes 2025A, 1057A, 2038A, and 2027A that had dis in excess of 1.25. S&L provided calculations for nodes 2025A, 1057A, and 2027A. These calculations were performed in 1978 and 1979 and had not been reviewed or approved. S&L described these as interim calculations, which would have to be redone after all of the final electrical loads in the plant i l were established and defined. Thermal calculations had not been per-1 formed for tray node 2038A. S&L provided a controlled list dated February 24, 1981 of 37 routing points (nodes) with design indexes over 1.25. Thirty-four of these tray points exceed the 50% tray fill requirement specified in the l FSAR, Section 8.3.3.1. Tray nodes 1104B and 2025B also exceed 60% l
- _. . _ . = - . - . . .. . _ . _ - -
INV001/C FINAL /np 1 fill. The S&L Assistant Manager stated that thermal calculations
- (both allowable and actual) will be performed in the near future for all power trays with a DI over 1.25. These calculations will be provided to NRC Region III. This item is unresolved (358/81-13-17).
- 5. Neither S&L Instruction No. PI-ZI-10.1, Revision 0, nor any other I
- ; document established controls to verify the thermal loading power of i1 cable (penetration) sleeves and the physical (dead weight) loading i
of trays (power, control, and instrument). i i
- a. The Cable Pan Loading Report included the design indexes of l sleeves. Sleeve #SL111 had a reported DI of 1.29 and sleeve
#SL105 had a reported DI of 1.26. A controlled list of power sleeves with a DI over 1.25 was not maintained.
- b. S&L stated that a design index of 1.25 would be used as the factor to determine when calculations would be performed for physical (dead weight) loading.
l ? i The lack of design control measures to verify the adequacy of the ll thermal loading of power sleeves and the physical loading of trays is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, and the Wm. H. Zimmer l l QA Manual, Section 3.11.2 (358/81-13-18). I t S&L revised Instruction PI'ZI-10.1, Revision 1, Sections 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7, on March 18, 1981 to include requirements to verify and control the l thermal loading of power sleeves and the physical loading of all trays 1 (power, control, and instrument) that have a design index over 1.25. l
._ , , - - - - ~ , - - . - -
, INV001/C FINAL /np I
S&L stated that calculations for the physical loads of all power, t control, and instrument trays, and for thermal loads of all power sleeves with a design index over 1.25, will be performed in the near future. These calculations will be provided to NRC Region III. The RIII inspector requested the justification for using the design index program for the determining factor for physical loads since the design index program had absolutely no relation to physical weight. The RIII inspector also requested justification for using the design i index of 1.25 as the determining limit for performing design calcula-2 tions. S&L stated that both of the justifications would be provided to NRC Region III. This item is unresolved pending evaluation of the justification for using a design index program (358/81-13-19).
- 6. The RIII inspector observed a note on the bottom of the thermal calcu-lation sheet dated December 27, 1979 for cable tray #1057A. The note indicated that two cables "#VC016 and VC073 are overloaded." The noted overloaded cables were not identified on any control document that would have required appropriate evaluation and disposition. S&L personnel stated that a control program did not exist for such design deviations. This is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion III, and the Wm . H. Zimmer QA Manual, Section 3.6 (358/81-13-20).
- 7. The RIII inspector determined the physical weight of yellow division control tray 1104B (Exhibit ).
l
.. o INV001/C FINAL /np The total weight of the cables for tray 1104B was determined to be 73.06 2 = 36.53 lb/ft2 3
b s 1 1 Therefore, tray 1104B (DI 1.54) is in compliance with FSAR I Section 3.10.1.2.3, which allows up to 40 lb/ft2, I i 5.10.4 Findings and Conclusions
; At this time, this allegation is neither substantiated nor unsubstantiated.
The acceptability of electrical tray hanger welds is unresolved pending i (1) additional inspections of hanger welds, which will be made after paint and fireproofing have been removed, and (2) establishment of the weld quality of those welds for which in process inspections were not performed and for which inspection criteria deviated from AWS Code requirements. The acceptability of electrical cable trays fill and loading is unresolved pending the completion and review of tray-loading calculations for several tray-routing points; reevaluations of cable selections; establishment of the actual design basis and verification measures for cable tray loading; establishment of design measures to verify the thermal loading of power sleeves and the physical loading of trays; and establishment of measures to control design deviations. l l l l
e INV001/C FINAL /np i 5.10.5 Items of Noncompliance 1 Six items of noncompliance were identified.
-i A
j These items have generic applicability to plants designed by S&L. NRC , i Region IV, Vendor Inspection Branch, is monitoring these items. i i t S e d 4 1 4
0 INV001/F FINAL /np Exhibit . Weight Tabulation f I 1
.i
_j Cable Cable Cable Weight Cable Cable Cable Weight No. Weight (1b/ft) No. Weight (Ib/ft) l AP079 12126 .622 PC013 07126 .342 AP080 12126 .622 RE055 02126 .146 AP081 12126 .622 RF128 02126 .146 AP166 12126 .622 VA018 10126 .583 AP167 04106 .316 VA019 02126 .146 AP168 04106 .316 VA020 02126 .146 AP170 12126 .622 VA024 02126 .146 AP171 04106 .316 VC023 07126 .342 AP172 04106 .316 VCO24 07126 .342 AP482 12126 .622 VC025 07126 .342 AP504 04106 .316 VC062 10126 .583 AP505 04106 .316 VC119 10126 .583 AP508 04106 .316 VC120 10126 .583 l AP540 04106 .316 VC121 10126 .583 I AP541 04106 .316 VC122 07126 .342 l l AP542 04106 .316 VC123 17126 .342 AP762 04106 .316' VC127 02126 .146 CM011 10126 .583 VC230 04126 .245
INV001/F FINAL /np i l Exhibit (continued) 1 i Cable Cable Cable Weight Cable Cable Cable Weight , No. Weight (lb/ft) No. Weight (1b/ft) i t DG022 12126 .622 VC265 07126 .342 DG028 12126 .622 VD014 12126 .622 + DG084 12126 .622 VG020 12126 .622 1 DG185 07126 .342 VG028 10126 .583 INO32 12126 .622 VG032 10126 .583 INO35 12126 .622 VG081 10126 .583 IN538 12126 .622 VG082 12126 .622 LC011 10126 .583 VG084 10126 .583 LC015 12126 .622 VG085 10126 .583 LC019 12126 .622 VG152 04126 .245 LC022 12126 .622 VG170 04126 .245 LCO25 12126 .622 VG171 04126 .245 LC029 12126 .622 VH030 12126 .622 LC033 12126 .622 VH040 04126 .245 LC036 12126 .622 VP022 12126 .622 LC040 12126 .622 VP030 12126 .622 LC044 12126 .622 VP050 12126 .622 LC047 12126 .622 VP057 02126 .146 INV001/F FINAL /np 1* i
).
i Exhibit (continued)
.l. Cable Cable Cable Weight Cable Cable Cable Weight J No. Weight (1b/ft) No. Weight (Ib/ft) i l
t l LC051 12126 .622 VP132 12126 .622 I l LC055 12126 .622 VP136 12126 .622 LC057 07126 .342 VP144 12126 .622 LC060 07126 .342 VP148 52126 .622 LC062 07126 .342 VQ014 10126 .583 I I LC064 07126 .342 VQO22 02126 .146 LL192 02126 .146 VQO30 12126 .622 NB200 04126 .245 VQO31 12126 .622 NB202 04126 .245 VQ082 07126 .342 NB210 04126 .245 VQ083 07126 .342 NB228 04126 .245 VQ084 07126 .342 NB229 04126 .245 VR030 12126 .622 l NB230 04126 .245 VR058 07126 .342 NB231 04126 .245 VX019 12126 .622 l NB232 04126 .245 VX051 07126 .342 NB233 04126 .245 VX052 07126 .342 NB234 04126 .245 VX072 04126 .245 NB235 04126 .245 VX128 02126 .146 NB236 04126 .245 VX156 02126 .146
- NB237 04126 .245 VX130 02126 .146 l
l l
INV001/F FINAL /np
)- Exhibit (continued) f, Cable Cable Cable Weight Cable Cable Cable Weight No. Weight (lb/ft) No. Weight (lb/ft) ] ! NB238 04126 .245 VY014 07126 .342 i ! NB239 04126 .245 VY015 07126 .342 NB254 04126 .245 VY019 12126 .622 4
NB258 04126 .245 VYO27 12126 .622 9
; NB261 04126 .245 VYO39 04126 .245 i
NB265 04126 .245 VYO43 04126 .245 NB269 04126 .245 VY056 07126 .342 NB271 04126 .245 VYO57 07126 .342 NB272 04126 .245 WR011 12126 .622 NB273 04126 .245 WR013 12126 .622 NB275 04126 .245 WR016 12126 .622 NB276 04126 .245 WR019 12126 .622 NB277 04126 .245 WR022 12126 .622 NB279 04126 .245 WR025 12126 .622
^
NB285 04126 .245 WR028 12126 .622 NB286 04126 .245 WR048 02126 .146 NB287 04126 .245 WR070 04106 .316 NB288 04126 .245 WR071 04106 .316 NB289 04126 .245 WR077 02126 .146 NB290 04126 .245 WR082 02126 .146 i.-
- INV001/F FINAL /np t
i
+
j Exhibit (continued) 1 Cable Cable Cable Weight Cable Cable Cable Weight i No. Weight (lb/ft) No. Weight (lb/ft) i I, NB291 04126 .245 WR087 02126 .146 NB292 04126 .245 WR127 07126 .342 NB297 04126 .245 WR129 10126 .583 l NB299 04126 .245 WS140 04106 .316 NB301 04126 .245 WS141 12126 .622
'l NB302 04126 .245 WS142 07126 .342 i
NB303 04126 .245 WS143 02126 .146 NB304 04126 .245 WS144 07126 .342 NB305 04126 .245 WS145 02126 .146 NB306 04126 .245 WS210 12126 .622 NB307 04126 .245 WS212 12126 .622 NB308 04126 .245 WS213 12126 .622 NB309 04126 .245 WS215 12126 .622 l NB310 04126 .245 WS216 04126 .245 NB316 04126 .245 WS217 04126 .245 NB317 04126 .245 WS218 04126 .245 NB318 04126 .245 WS222 04126 .245 NB319 04126 .245 WS313 03091 .326
^
NB334 04126 .245 WS316 07126 .342 TOTAL 73.06 t I
INV001/F FINAL /ap I
+
j NOTE: *The RIII inspector verified the cable weights for type 03091, I l 04106, and 12126 with the following manufacturer's data: i 03091--Okonite Proposal Data for S&L specification 2160B dated
] December 21, 1973 .'l 04106--Okonite Bid Quotation dated October 23, 1973 1
12126--Okonite Proposal Data for S&L specification H-2161 dated May 22, 1974. I. i l 9 i f I 3
._m- __-- - - - - - - - - - - -
\ III. IMISTICATION "
gg A. Background Jovestirrtien Information On February 23,1981,[nspectorJamesReyFs,initiatedthree ' NR's which were assigned Control Nos. 5476, 5477, 5479 these NR's e reported nonconforming conditions on $ryweld.3upport
$ teel in the Primary Containment Building. 4:/N Z.
ouise stated the- ; i welds on-the Nos. 63, 58, and 3 were full penetration velds I which required 100% coverage by nondestructive examination eatherradiography,magneticparticletesting,orIltrasonic testing. He also found that on all three beams there was no documentation of heat numbers for the backing strip,or filler metal used to make the weldy and no evidence of welder quali-fications or welding procedure used. TheNEwrNRLogshows I /.' f. ,- that NR Nos(. 5477, and 5479, were voided as "KR u:nissued" on 1 February 27, 1981. No copy of these NR's was retained in the f . **. ? .' t .%l s Kerser STC files. A copy of NR's CN 5476, 5477, and 5479 are appended to this report as exhibit (.75 ),(/} ), ( /. ). .I' l i 1
/ B. Personal Interviews !
, i
~ r . ;-
j ; . ,. ..
~
b,
/ .1 >
l On February 25, 1981, James Reyes, QC Inspector, Neiser, was g
.-O .'t.4o 1 [..
interviewed and stated the Keiser QA Manager was aarhlrtraly i s i
. voiding NR'g'and he had no assurance that NR's he initiated ;
e a would be entered into the Keiser nonconformance reporting [ i system and nonconforming conditions he identified on these ; llc.L NR's would be corrected. 1-eet+e provided the NRC with NR's ,,,.s ' l
.OI'\"i
(, K ,4 ..
\
L
_I '. '70 0 0. - F -
"" !. T_/ : o_
Ch >+ , t o , 3 + / i , and 5479 and stated these had been initiated
~
by him on February 23, 1981, but he did not think Jr //Ef would be processed properly in the nonconformance reporting system. j?,, , , '
- p. . r, c ia o.~, . Y v? O Louise proviueo a written statement attesting to the informa-tion, a copy of which is attached as fxhibit ( '// ).
/ ~j. , f . : d ,.e. 3 ,l},.'::d i
/:
On June 10, 1981, Dennis Donovan, QC Inspector, Keiser, was '
/. 'd interviewed and stated that he reviewed nonconformance-report- :
-i. 1IV $u o '2- [
Nos. 5476, 5477, and 5479 and concurred the inspector Reyes - 7'i > 2. initiation of thN NR'.S Donovan stated Reyes errored in his , identification of one deficency on these NR's, because appar-ently a Design Document Change (DDC) had been written by the licensee's architect engineer Sargent and Lundy, Inc. which
. o rir. >. u . ci' ,._ , , .$ , , . .. n ;-
eldmated the NDE coverage on these beams. Donovan whoever, . o+.d questioned S&L's waver of this requirement and said it ras contrary to S&L's Specificatic,n M2174 which requires 100/, ! nondestructiveexaminationcoverageonallClassIweldsj { t and these particular welds were identified on the drawing,5 a Class I welds. Donovan stated, he reviewed the DDC in
. . e. . c o !
- question and found out that S&L waved the nondestruction '
7:r examination coverage who--e,re " ease of construction." He said in his opinion this was not adequate justification to i c' & i .a waver the NDE coverage, opha =* heams. Donovan advised that l I Keiser construction department.is partly repairing these and
- w. ia a [
other kenleaver beams in the primary contaniment building. ! 3 ; , :g ,~, (= / Si hP/Alb ,{ On June 10, 1981, RexBaker,InspectionSupervisor,Kkiser, i was interviewed and stated the4. on February 23,1981,3spector p I l .T l 2-qi") i 31' z/\ -dM j sb
. m a. - r r . .1 1/..r s i
' I .' '
James Reyes, identified nonconforming welds on some Lcn1 raver l beams located in the primary containment building. Baker
.t o 7 statedE[ eyes.
initiated;and he concurred in the initiation of (h L 'o : ' NR Was. 5476, 5477, and 5479. Baker stated Louise documented t nonconforming cor.ditions such as no nondestructive examination f::. l. i of whole pentrations welds,and lack of material traceabilty and I
- 7. ,,' T/ bs l'. M welder qualifications. Baker stated that- on February 27, 1981, i he voided these NR's with the comment "NR no issued." He stated
(? , Ja n: l l he voided these NR's after a meeting with Phillip Gittings in i Februar.y-10SL, in which he, Gittings, Kenneth Shinkle, QA5 and Robert Marshall, construction manager discussed the nonconform-ing conditions identified by -Loui's'e and- Marshall stated that CAn'in 51: the welds on these kenleaver beams were to be cut out by Ke,iser I/ .'J C so tMs days nonconformance report-should be voided. Baker - g 7/ . i. ' stated,'on Gittings instructions he voided these NR's and gave I all four of the original copies of the NR's to Phillip Gittings. l 6 o i b
~
9% [ { t t
lH 010 - F N:.U I/so
.. . .- ', */ '
.. i.'..? '
On June 11, 1981, Kenneth Shinkle, Mechanical Civil Structual, QualNh Engineer, K$iser, was interviewed and stated on February 23 />.*/ fs,2. C. N QC inspector James Reyes, initiated NR control-Nos. 4956, 4957, and 4959. Shinkle stated he reviewed these nonconformance-NR's
. and found that inspector Lo&Il uise had errored in identification T):1,1 of one nonconforming condition on the-NR8s. He stated thet a DDC had been issued by licensee's architect engineers Sargent and Lundy, Inc. which w NDE requirements for the noncon-b 12.
forming beams identified by Louise. Shinkle stated whoever, that he question'#'the justification for this DDC because4' the ned .. k ~ ') text of the DDC said "for use of construction," NDE is waved. Shinkle said d et t h e, the welds jidentified an the NR's are
,,. ,,; ; , n ..s n Class 1 welds because they are ,2nbeded to the' containment liner i.
plate and normally S&L specifications and h Nuclear Code requirements require 100% NDE for any Class I welds. Shinkle i stated _en,Q::ferrored
' in identifying this one condition; however, the remaining nonconforming conditions such as lack of material l i
traceability and welder qualifications for these welds was i
/.1. 0 [
correct and Loui s for the most part was not in error in this i cat, %.=s?Q l l NR. Shinkle advised that- the k+a14 aver beams in question, hold ; 1 up walkways, pipe support hanger, and heating and ventiliation i I ducts in the primary containment building. i i y p;rM (j ShinklestatedinFebruary1981,heattendedlwithRexBaker, l PhillipGittings,andRobertMarshall,hustructionkuperintendent, NY 2_ reguarding tenne NR's. Shinkle stated that Marshall wanted to O' [k p i i repair the beams on a case-by-case basisyand merely wanted to-de a ut
}
visiual inspection of the weld to see if it was exceptable. nyt , v
lJN O - F Li1M T/so stated that the ya r.. anger, Phillip Gittings, agreed with this and told him to work with the construction department and w g .c Lor
- r.'t $
rework the welds using P1-1 repair cardseand aise told Rex Baker not to process the .a..r s written by k, es. Shinkle stated to the best of knowledge the n/.'/2Ji 17t"2 onconformances written by Reyes were e. never entered into the Keiser nonconformance reporting system s u.. . - he stated this cas specially significant in light of the fact /~/ / T , in February 19S1, there was an NRC investigation onsite into ' theirregulariesintheK[isernonconformancereportingsystem. ' Shinkle stated after Gittings directed him to resolve the issues /j't'/2 4
.an Louises NR he conducted an inspection of all the
( f i. '/.. n N kenleever beams located at the 572' elevation of the primary containment building. Shinkle stated that. he found that of the 27 beams there was no final QC inspection on any of themyand four of the 27 beams had no evidence of any fitup inspection. Shinkle stated he also found the same nonconforming conditions, i lack of material traceability for weld filler metal aa4 j backing , strips;and 1ack of evidence of any welder qualifications d- Eli these welds. In addition Shinkle stated he conducted a vislual , i examination of the weldsj and although they were painted over in many cases,the welds did not appear to meet code standards. 1 i l Shinkle stated he advised Robert Marshall of this situtation i t and Marshall stated he did not want to repair the nonconforming ' conditions because einer-the '2:33: u d m g u - - + a difica-I tit,as had been made to the beams in which 3.#5 plates had l been added-etr-th; :;ide and these plates would have to be removed
.... )
in order to conduc inspections,M-th wlds. Shinkle advised C # - 9m'4Y'] *
,i.
, [m, j,u ~ ,6
_ ?
n . :._ 3-Y_,
, i T!> .
that at this time the construction department is in the process of removing the questioned beams from the primary containment building.
. c. Record Reviews On June 6, 1981, Regina Rudd, Keiser NR Controler, was centacted and asked to retrieve NR, CN 5476, 5477, and 5479 from the Kaiser .
Site Document Control Center. Rudd stated that she conducted a , file search of the open, closed, and voided nonconformance reports and could not locate the nonconformance reports assigned these numbers. Rudd provided a copy of the NR log page which reflects that on February 27, 1981, NR's 5477, 5478, and 5479 were voided with a comment "NR not issued." A copy of the NR log page is appended to this report as a exhibit (42).
- d. Field Observations
!l l
NR's CN 5477, 5478 and 5479 were not entered into the Kaiser I nonconformance reporting system. .
- e. Acceptance Criteria l
l ! Kaiser Procedure QACMI G-4, Revision dated 1981. a a w-
}gF/W M N/[4/jd hMMd'I INV003/E FINAL./np RyN" On July 8, 1981, Gittings was interviewed following the investigation the dispositio of a selective group of twenty NRs. Gittings stated M the voiding of NRs by clerks and by yd Oltz, ( Supervisor was improper because neither Oltz nor members of his staff were qualified to make engineering judgemenfconcerning deficiencies identified on d NRs.
GittingssaidthathedirectedtheNRprocedurebechanged/afterSk h cember 1980 NRC inspection N that only he could void an h
- ittings
/Nf/M4P A
b that according to Kaiser procedures any QC inspector has the authority ' to initiate an NR and it should then be entered into the Kaiser nonconform-ance reporting system. When questioned about his failure to issue NR control h?d.O h' W numbers 4975-79 4 written by Inspector James Ruiz on February 23, 1981, Gittings M t. said he directed Rex Baker, Inspection Supervisor, to void ,those NR g w
>__ _ He said thap%w_
. u ae. -
n te.wwu
~
a was contrary to the Kaiser g l procedure which only permitted an NR to be voided if it was " written in error". Gittings said those NRs were not erroneously written. ittings ehus stated that he did void NRs at the request of Construction Department personnel, but added that he made independent decisions when doing so and was not compelled : by construction personnel to void NRs. Gittings stated he did not know why i Christopher Dumford's Control No. 4309 was not in the Kaiser nonconformance system and denied diverting this NR from the system. When questioned about specific irregularities found during the present NRC investigation, Gittings OY a I concurred that the practices of voiding NRsgitating they would be reinspected , after redesign", d voiding NRs and the nonconformances e unch lists &, and voiding NRs _BNN4C/W-
-- 1 . nonconformances on surveillance ,.
reports were not in accordance with Kaiser procedures. r 1 Ir l i i
l INV003/E FINAL /np Gittings stated that Kaiser's QC inspectors were identifying $ problems at Zimmer, however, CG&E and Kaiser did not have enough sufficiently quali-fied people to build the plant and still inspect to indur,try codes and standards. He said this was evident when Richard Reiter identified a significan+A%46tWY t roblem when reviewing isometric drawings on small bore pipe
//40 systems. Gittings said Reiter initiated a surveillance W W~Yl report Y_,_ N/P W N/ft/N\$NOWWf.. Y 1problemsf-He Wf'M/d4 said '
tA W ~~ t
. problem - - ,
I'
' '" warranted reporting to the NRC; however, Kaiser did not do so. He said ve ually Kaiser hired two Quality Assurance Engineers toreviewthedocumentationandthey[ndtheNRC ' W found that Reiter's analysis was correct.
I
?
O l I \ I i k
!~
i
_ .. - _ . . _ ,_ , . - - . . -+~ .-~ ~< -ara --- -
~ - ' - ^^A A- ~- ~' A ~ " -
8 J k This item is unresolved pending the resolutien of the hangers i identified in SR No. 2893 and any other hanger connections throughout e the plant that were c/vered before u<being inspected. (358/81-13-12) i,
'I t
4 i l i i l 8 y- m . y,----- - - , - - --, -,--- - - , - . , - - - - ,,,-----,----w - _ . , - - - - - - w - - - - , . - - -
B. qisers fi~a, tenews, dhfew:ews Cenara:-< l'He 7% h*d. ,, ., ,
/ .AAF The RIII inspector made field observations, reviewed and discussed site control measures, and reviewed and discussed the design basis and verifications regarding cable tray loading. Tray loading was considered in three aspects: p(cableampacityorthermalloading; @ physical weight loading; and % the commitments in the Zimmer FSAR Section 8.3.3.1.
l l l i S
- 1. The following cable tray routinf points (nodes) were selected for the reviews and discussions:
- a. 1057A - yellow division / power tray - selected because of the
; high design index, D.I. #1.44 (see paragraph 3 of this report section for explanation of Design Index).
j
- b. 2025A - blue division / power tray - selected because of the high D.I. #1.46.
- c. 2023A - blue division / power tray - selected for verification of D.I. # accuracy (D.I. 1.18).
- d. 2038A - blue division / power tray - selected because of the high D.I. #1.44.
- e. 2039A - blue division / power tray selected during field observations because of the appearance of being highly filled.
I '. "
- f. 1073A - yettow division / power tray - selected for verifica-e tion of the number of cables installed.
- g. 20868 - blue division / control tray - selected during field observations because of the appearance of being highly filled.
1
- h. 11048 - yettow division / control tray - selected because of the high D. I. #1.54.
l r
- 2. The RIII inspector and a licensee representative counted the n
cables in the fotLowing tray fodes and compared the counts to the number of cables listed in the S & L Cable Pan Loading Report, dated 2/2/81: d NofeSU FieldSSCountSU ReportSSCountSU
- a. 1057A 27 27
- b. 2025A 24 23
- c. 2039A 3 39
- d. 1073A 32 33 d
1 The Cable Pan Loading Report is a computerized periodical which I states the design status of the cable tray loads. The Report identifies the individual cable numbers which have been specified 1 to be routed through the segmented tray points (nodes). l l l
i . The RIII inspector reviewed the H. J. Kaiser Cable Monitoring Report dated 2/5/81 and some cable pull (installation cards) to verify that the cables specified for tray nodes 1057A, 2025A, 2023A and 1073A in the Loading Report had actually been installed. For tray node 2025A, cable No. LL145 was found to be two individual conductors and for tray I node /073A,therecordsindicatedthatcableNo.VP210hadnotbeen l installed yet, which accounted for the discrepancies between the above l Field and Report counts. No other discrepancies were identified in i 1 either the design or installation reports and records for trays nodes l 1057A, 2025A, 2023A, 2039A, and 1073A. Thus the design and installa-I,
, tion records appeared to match the number of cables actually installed
{ in the plant. A e
- 3. The RIII inspector inquired as to how the computerized Design Index program correlated to the Zimmer FSAR Section 8.3.3.1 concerning cable ampacity and Section 3.10.1.2.3.c concerning physical weight limitations.
. 9' 0
.;g, g, F.S.A.R. Section 8.3.3.1 states the fotLowing:
l! i I ' 1 l; 8.3.3.1.1 InSSTraysSU i 1< ALL power cables to be used in ZPS-1 are assigned in accordance with Table 8.3-18. The tables for power cable loading are based on IPCEA Publication No. P-46-426. 1 l
e
}
8.3.3.1.2 NotSSInSSTraysSU The thermal ampacity of power and control cables with no part of their length in solid-bottom tray are in accordance with IPCEA P-46-426, with appropriate rating factors applied for ambient, shields, and direct-current service.
} 8.3.3.1.3 FiLLSU i
t - The summation of the cross-sectional areas of the cables shaLL not i exceed 50% of the tray usable cross-sectional area or two layers of cables, whichever is larger, but not to exceed 60% of the cross-sectional area in any case. Conduit is sized in accordance with Sargent & Lundy Standard EDSB-10, Electrical Draf ting Reference for Determining Conduit and Pipe Sizes, which limits conduit fill to the percentages esta-blished by the National Electric Code. F.S.A.R. Section 3.10.1.2.3.c states " Cable tray loading of 40 psf (pounds per square foot) is used throughout." k
)( On 3/17/81 and 3/19/81 the S & L Assistant Manager of Electrical Engineers described the correlation between the FSAR and the
. Design Index program as fotLows:
r _ i 1 1 i The power cable ampacity loading is based not on 'IPCEA P-46-426 1962, but on IEEE Paper 70TP557-PWR (by J. Stolpe) printed in 4 1 i WAS 1970, IPCEA Publication P-54-4401975 which4 based on Stolpe's Paper, and S & L Standard ESA-104a revision 11/1/72.
~
)+ ,
^
The Stolpe method bases ampacity on the, Depth-of-Fi(L of cables in ' S & L uses a 2-inch j tray rather than on the percentage fitt. i depth-of-fitL as the basis of selecting a cable for a particular ampere load. -
! +
i ,
, (1) The2-inchdepth-of-fiLLdesignresult:sinhmahoriconserva- g
- <.. m
- t. ion because of: ,
s a [ ', j . , kN i
\t- / h 3N(
(a) Load diversity - many cables carry curr!ent only intermit-s ( tently (e.g. valve operators, sump pumps, etc.) ( s i a t h, . 3 (b) Cable size granularity; ,only a few Cable ~ types and i GV
- Se , ,
sizesgperchased, resulting in aelection of oversize " cables for most services. This.means m'any cables would '.e s' (, ., be capable of carrying larger currents (rated) than s s
, t what are actually carried. < s.
,s s
6 . ,t, s ,s i '
), ' '
(c) Design ampere margin - the design ampere [oads used to ~ select cables before the finst equipment,d sign data is( ily known are necessarg conservative (hiO ). i r r
. . . - t , i 5
4 s.
?
(2) Because of the above conservatisms, the S & L design practices are as follows: (a) Cables are routed into trays without limiting fill.
'y .
Ii l j '+ 'I , . (b) The resulting fill is monitored as the design proceeds.
; \,\
'i (c) When the fill reaches a target level the actual heat load is calculated and if the heat load exceeds the allowable amount, sufficient cables are removed from the affected trays.
To accomplish steps (2)(b) and (2)(c), S & L uses the Design Index program. Design Index is a measure of tray fill. Mathematically: The sum of the (cable diameters) " Design Index = _ i i useable area of the tray ( i l where useable area, U.A. = tray width X design depth-of-fill (design depth-of-fill is based on
'l square cables) l
) = 50%'of tray cross-sectional area.
)
s
\
o l - ___m__? _J- . - , .
For 24 in. x 4 in. power trays;$U the total area = 96 square inches and useable area = 24" x 2" = 48 sq. inches M. )f E(d )$U E means summation
- p. Z. : ~ n )
, U.f. d means cable diameter This equation is consistent with the Stolpe method. " Percent Fi LL" is l not consistent with the Stolpe method because the depth of the tray is l
c i used rather than the depth of the cables in the tray. Also percent fitL II r ! is based on the actual cable cross sectional area rather than the
- square cable that is assumed in the Stolpe method.
I L i .~ ., 22:F'- :4 - yo sq. in. cvs.'
, :--- + h,'= ' ::;i'.; ;... -
, m>,,- ra .. :_
~
= = -
.-- = _ . - -
i
/
Mathematically: Percent Fill X Sum of cable cross-sectional areas x 100 l + * =- total cross-sectional tray area 1
,1 where the sum of cable cross-sectional areas = E(pi x 8r ')
with r = radius of the cable pi = 3.1416 i 1Am4, E (pixr 8") x 100 Aae=f6M .:. total area
$ See man Art. 4 s.t / A, xx. ../p..afperce= f /:d cek **Wo/
.,cr w.f u w.
l The relation between design index and percent fill is therefore: f E(pi xr ** ) x 100 Percent Fill M total area Design Index E (die.3, ) t upeable area A Since total area, T.A. = 2 X useable area, U.f. and d = 2 x r i
l l eEe: 4 .1 ,.. av. .> gr rg9n*
=
#r.r. b)
{ p.f. 8 E c// / # a. 1 ~ 4.A. g c 4 *) (; - f $O0 Y S. pg f b. [e Thus for a 4 inch deep tray: 39.3% Actual FILL = 1.0 Design Index = 2 inch design depth-of-fitt (square cables) 50% Actual FILL = 1.27 Design Index = 2.54 inch design depth-of-fill (square cables) 60% Actual FILL = 1.52 Design Index = 3.04 inch design depth-of-fill (square cables) And for a 6 inch deep tray: 39.3% Actual Fitt = 1.0 Design Index = 3 inch design depth-of-fill (square cables) l l
! Based on the above relationships between design index and depth of I
CmN#8 squargwandthefactthatS&Lhasuseda2-inchdepth-of-fiLLasthe e basis of selecting cables for particular amppre loads, the cables in tray nodes with a D.I. over 1.0 would have to be re-evaluated considering the increased depths. This item is unresolved pending the completion of j the re-evaluations (358/81-13-15). i The above design bases for cable ampacity was a deviation from the FSAR which was not identified on any control document. This deviation is contrary to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion III and the Wm. H. Zimmer QA Manual Section 3.6 as described in the Appendix A to the report trans-mittal letter. (358/81-13-16) on 3/17/81, the S & L Assistant Manager of Electrical Engineers stated that appropriate modifications to the FSAR would be submitted to NRR. Also specific consideration would be given to the differing types of cable insulations, addressed in the publications (standards), when compared to the cable insulations used in Zimmer. 44 )R('(TheRIIIinspectorreviewedS&LInstructionNo.PI-II-10.1 Rev. O dated 2/6/78, paragraph 4.5 which states, "The Senior l Electrical Project Engineer shaLL assign an electrical engineer to D run thermal loading calculations for all power tray routing points with a design index exceeding 1.25. He shall compare these loadings, in watts per feet, with the watts per feet limits esta-( blished for the design indexes involved."
i IThe RIII inspector requested the thermal calculations for tray nodes 2025A, 1057A, 2038A, and 2027A which had D.I.'s in excess of l 1.25. S & L provided calculations for nodes 2025A, 1057A, and l 2027A. These calculations which were performed in 1978 and 1979, had not been reviewed or approved. S & L described these as interim calculations, which would have to be redone after all of the final electrical loads in the plant were established and . defined. Thermal calculations had not been performed for tray node 2038A. I muI S & L provided a controlled list (Attached D) dated 2/24/81 of 37 routing points (nodes) with design indexes over 1.25 for the Zimmer plant. Thirty-four of these tray points tx-r d for 50% tray fill requirement specified in the F.S.A.R., Section 8.3.3.1. Tray nodes
.ts * .p;Il 11048 and 2025Bj exceed de 60%,4r4m+e=. The S & L Assistant Manager stated that thermal calculations (both allowable and actual) will be performed in the near future for all power trays with a D.I.
over 1.25, including those on Attachment D. These calculations wiLL be provided to the NRC, Region III. This item is unresolved. (358/81-13-17) 8
%. Neither S & L Instruction No. PI-II-10.1 Rev. O nor any other document established controls to verify the thermal loading power cable (penetration) sleeves and the physical (dead weight) loading of trays (power, control, and instrument).
i 1
' a. The Cable Pan Loading Report included the design indexes of y ets J Aede ref* N sleeves. Sleeve #SL111 hadj a D.I. of 1.29 and sleeve #SL105 hecHi #
ay ,& ' ' ' . , D.I. of 1.26. A controlled List of powers sleeves with a D.I. over 1.25 was not maintained.
- b. S & L stated that design index of 1.25 would be used as the deter-mining factor as to when c,alculations would be performed for physical (dead weight) Loading.
, The lack of design control measures to verify the adequacy of the thermal Loading of power sleeves and the physical loading of trays is contrary to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Crit rion III and the Wm. H.
Zimmer QA Manual, Section 3.11.2 as described in the Appendix A to i the report transmittal letter. (358/81-13-18) S & L revised Instruction PI-II-10.1 Rev.1, Section 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 on 3/18/81 to include requirements to verify and control the thermal loading of power sleeves and the physical loading of all W trays (power, control, and instrument) which have a design index over 1.25. l S & L stated that calculations for the physical loads of all l power, control, and instrument trays, and for thermal loads of all power sleeves, with a design index over 1.25, wiLL be performed in the near future. These calculations wiLL be provided to the NRC, Region III.
i I The RIII inspector requested the justification for using the design index program for the determining factor for physical loads since the design index program had absolutely no technical relation to (fvphysicalweight. The RIII inspector also requested justification for using the design index of 1.25 as the determining Limit for i ! performing design calculations. S & L stated that both of the i l justifications would be provided to the NRC, Region III. This item is unresolved. (358/81-13-19) e 6 JL The RIII inspector observed a note on the bottom of the thermal calcu-Lation sheet dated 12/27/79 for cable tray #1057A. The note indicated that two cables "#VC016 and VC073 are overloaded". The noted overloaded cables were not identified on any control document which would have required appropriate evaluation and disposition. The S & L personne( did stated that a control program akure not exist for such design deviations. This is contrary to 10 CFR 50, App. B, Criterion III and the Wm. H. Zimmer QA Manual Section 3.6 as described in the Appendix A to the report transmittal letter. (358/81-13-20) 7 i 8 The RIII inspector performed the following physical weight tabulation l , of yellow division control tray #1104B: l
... - -- Cable Weight 1' $L Cable #$U Cable TypeSU *(lbs./ft)$U l
- . m _. m_
1 i i AP079 12126 . 622 d
,j AP080 1 " "
AP081 l' Lj " " AP166 AP167 04106 . 316 AP168 AP170 12126 . 622
! AP171 04106 . 316 i
f AP172
. 8 AP4)2 12126 . 622 , ! AP504 04106 . 316 i
AP505 AP508 AP540 l AP541 AP542 AP762 CM011 10126 . 583 l! DG022 12126 . 622 DG028 DG084 l DG185 07126 . 342 INO32 12126 . 622 INO35 l INO38
.g - - - - - -w-; w- - , , , - - - - ---
.e,_y- .- ,e-, -
. .. . . - - - . . .=:.
1 1
;f LC011 10126 .583 LC015 12126 .622 LC019 LCO22 LCO25 LCO29 LC033 LCO36 i
I LC040 l LC044 li LC047 i
! LC051 LC055 LC057 07126 .342 LC060 LC062 6
LC0/4 LL1/2 02126 .146 N8200 04126 .245 N8202 N8210 N8228 N8229 N8230 NB231 N8232
f r i i i l " " NB233 NB234 t
.i NB235 l " "
NB236 NB237 NB238 I " " l j NB239 ' i
! NB254 1
! NB258 t! " "
NB261 l l " NB265 i f, NB269 NB271 I i NB272 i NB273 l NB275 l " " I NB276 NB277 l NB279 1 j NB285 i^ " " NB286 NB287 NE288 NB289 NB290 NB291
- - - , . - - . w.--y-- . . --- - -. .%,-.,-..-m ., .,-.-. - - - - , m,y--.-- - - - - - , -,-.-- -
-. ,,-,e, - - - , - - ---- --------- - - - - - --'-- - - - --- - -
. .==
o t .
? -
.i j
NB292 NB297 NB299 NB301 NB302 NB303 NB304
- NB305 l
4 NB306 NB307
.f i " "
! NB308 i
j NB309 NB310 NB316" l NB317 NB318 NB319 NB334 PC013 07126 .342 RE055 02126 .146 1 RF128 VA018 10126 .583 VA019 02126 .146 VA020 VA024 VCO23 07126 .342 m o e (7 y - - _ . ,__ ~ , - - - . - . _ . . _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ . _ , . _ _ . _ . - . - _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ - . - _ ,- . . - - , . .
. . . . ~ .. ..
. =_ _ . -.
j . l VCO24 VCO25 VC062 10126 . 583 VC119 VC120 VC121 VC122 07126 . 342 l VC123 j VC127 02126 . 146 l VC230 04126 . 245 l VC265 07126 . 342 VD014 12126 . 622 l " " VG020 VG028 10126 . 583 VG032 VG081 VG082 12126 . 622 VG084 10126 . 583 l VG085 VG152 04126 . 245 i 2 " " VG170 !{ VG171 VH030 12126 . 622 VH040 04126 . 245 VP022 12126 . 622 VP030
, - . - -_,m,- ,.-r -__ ., 5 + - - - -
* ~ ---- - ~-
..<._.n..
l d 1
, VP050 9 VP057 02126 .146 -L lj VP132 12126 .622
' t l' " " VP136 VP144 VP148 VQO14 10126 .583 i VQO22 02126 .146 l VQO30 12126 .622 , j VQO31 VQ082 07126 .342 i i VQ083 i VQ084 VR030 12126 .622 VR058 07126 .342 VX019 12126 .622 VX051 07126 .342 , VX052 l lj VXO72 04126 .245
; VX128 02126 .146 VX156 ,
,i VX130 i i i, VYO14 07126 .342 VYO15 VYO19 12126 .622 l " " VYO27 l
, . , _ , . , y - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ , . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . -- . - , ----
l' VYO39 04126 .245 j VYO43 VYO56 07126 .342 VYO57 WRO11 12126 .622 l " WR013 " { WRO16 WR019 WR022 WR025 l WR028 WR048 02126 .146 e WR070 04106 .316 WR071 WR077 02126 .146 WR082 WR087 WR127 07126 .342 WR129 10126 .583 j WS140 04106 .316 S W/141 12126 .622 WS142 07126 .342 WS143 02126 .146 Wp144 07126 .342 WS145 02126 .146 Lb
/
i , t t 4 WS210 12126 .622 WS212
. WA213 WS215 WS216 04126 .245 WS217 l
WS218 " " l WS222 " "
! WS313 03091 .326 WS316 07126 .342 i
i b. l Total 73.06 .3d/ft t Since tray 11048 is 2 ft. x 6 inch, then the total weight of the cables at tray 11048 4 lb. is 73.06S = 36.53 .tt5/ft # 2 l l Therefore tray 11048 (D.I.1.54) is in compliance with the F.S. A.R., Ib.
; Section 3.10.1.2.3 which allows up to 40 id/ft n .
, i i I
*)
l t l
]
"# 4
, I l j *The RIII inspector verified the cable weights for type 03091, 04106, and 12126 with the following manufacturer's data: i
?
03091 - Okonite Proposal Data for S & L specification
' 2160B dated 12/21/73 i
04106 - Okonite Bid Quotation dated 10/23/73 12126-Okon$teProposalDataforS&Lspecification H-2161 dated 5/22/74 i
. ' ly
?lR.
.s+ . 9 04 i
1%1ir50 E
' Af o% ow'd" l
S -^ ^ ~ T This iMone in final, g so if there are any k corrections, please write 24" = them on a separate sheet of paper rather than gew correcting right on the Pi (3 sheet. Pi (3 = 0./b
. .sv v g4.0)~
l Pi (1.n - Pi (1.3)2 = 5.30 (2.6)2 = 6.76 Pi (1.3)2 = 5.30 (2.6)2 = 6. I Thanks. Pi (0.3)2 = .28 + .28 (0.6) (0.6)36 =0.36 + 0.36
= 1.0 I Pi (0.5)2 = .78 (1.0)2 Pi (0.35)2= 0.38 (0.7)2 ==0.490.49 j
Pi (0.35)2= 0.38 (0.7)2 Pi(0.35}2= 0.38 (0.7)2 . o,49
= 2.54 (1.8)2 == 3.24 Pi (0.9)2 = 3.80 4.84 Pi (1.1)2 = 3.80 (2.2)2 = 4.84 Pi (1.1)2 - 5.30 (2.2)2 = 6.76 Pi (1.3) 2= 1.76 (2.6)2 VC014 03001 Pi (0.75)2= (1.5)2 == 2.25 1.21 VC015 03041 0.95 Pi (0.55)2= 2.26 (1.1)2 VC017 03301 Pi (0.85)2= (1.7) 2 = 2.89 (1.7) = 2.89 VG014 03301 2.26 VT010 03001 Pi (0.85)2= 1.76 (1.5)'2 == 2.25 03301 Pi Pi (0.75)2=
(0.85) 2.26 2.89 VT015 (1.7)2 WA037 03091 Pi (0.35)2= 0.38 (0.7) 2 == 0.49 0.49 WA128 03091 Pi (0.35)2= 0.38 (0.7)2 WS130 03091 Pi (0.35)2= 0.38 (0.7) . o,49 34 in. 70.52 sq.in. E of areas = For Tray 2025A D.I. = 70.52 sq. in. = 1.469 48 sq. in. ga,ay s. WA037 0' WA I L# (Cable Tab Sheet)
~
!" f $ 037 l ySt 34
~
g ,/a,e> = SS.s S sg. i=. I 1 m-.....- . . .
' 4001m - i.sv
, M 7 r ,44,,te r .s/
1039 0 - 1.3 - 2012 A - 1. 35 ' ' 4o t o A. N6 ' socoA - I25 2012 6 -125 sos 2 6 - I.5 I z o s 7 A - I.37 HotIA - /. +1 4411A-I.18 1o53 e> - t.2l. loss A - 1.2 (, 20s 3 A -l.36 40/ 2 8 - I.4f 4424S-/.53 s055 S - 11% 2o19 6 -/.31 20244 -1.37 +o 2 7 A - 1.4 0 44338-l.34 105 7 A - I44 - 202+ 6 - I.3G
. Los.].es - IW1
- 2 0 2 S A - 1.4 (* - ! Uodd 6C ~ l %1 44 356- I.4 L d l_O 5 S A.LS - 1. 'l 4 ox 20256 .I.55 , , -p 4o47 8 - /.3o 1058 SC -I.4 5 --
< d'l 56 R - I. 3 8 j 2077 A - 44(a .
44 38 e -i. 3 7
; loS9c -i.33 z o s s A - 4.t 1 fo74 c - /.3 t-lo73 A- -I1s
~
202'!S-1.42 .
'/078K-/B6 44396 -I.35'
, 4079 K. - I. 27
, 80 85.6 - I.4Q u
203l b - I.3 C $oSOK-l.'tQ 44426-l4] 10 3*? 6 - /.4 5 t o 3 8 A - /.4 tf yo8GC -/.77 44623 l.4F l 1! '4 08 8 C. -/ 3 ( 4'f(.5 6 -133 (f eg 'D
/088 6 - /.*SG l! go q5 S - g.55 20M S - 124-4/ 52 64 -l. '2f,
' ot //o 4 8 - /.514 2063 8 -t 3/ 4 /2 0 8 - 1 3 f.
t Ig g,23 ,
disoc -/,3o I] 4/2I6 -1.38 2157 A - I.3 2 48 2.1 c - 13(,
i y tti c - l.24 2l 5't A I.3 5 4t45 co-/.4 2 ysG4 A - /.46 4 so 3 r.29 f5(o'! 6 -1.4 I 2/Go A - /.40 4 iso a - 1 1.9 #
Y 41818-/.3G 19 41856-1.28 3oog - /,29 4290 A - /.34 4(5g s c. - 13G 4293A-/.42 1 sosGE - I.5 5 nen/ %ri as Ecc.r.nar f-e Amt -fh4 4199A-f}3 au so, x .r s11 Q *49 %
4Ll3 A -I.37 e c.:3 43576-1,'29 l
u ns- 53 4 41.'ll , ,
&nd RouroaG f%,ars ro se Avanceo 4383 5. /.3l 9- es.3a To Go troorco tu vaas s,4 eoacenau u.a.90 ftav P's Q 4 394/4 . f,yg 5,7s.or /4 Mao r.tc..(o,t. r a O k a cacao, carn *a p,,.
,-.raecoco
,-aya.a; at.m,c %.w:o rsa c.m,rroa.,, .e c-a%
43 95 A - I.3s n . a a re m ,. w o,x w .,.e,, ,s es. . c .. s ,
* ^
..tT'~~L, 2 ,.,,.11. m ~
?" R*'D'G P*'"5 lr m u M l u ,
ovee /.2 5
. Mg..m .+ .. m...,.,, . -~ --
i $b.d &&j .'O Wu ' ' " zou nst 4 R S. --~
/
! iHMd ' d !.E it .
C6/E , , , , ,, ,4 .
- . . . A S *1i il***l
; 8C oPin
-- - - - - - -- . =---. ...-. _. .
I AtlegationSS55U
" Sensitive parts on welding rods are possibly damaged through storage at improper temperatures and possibly lost through failure to fotlow proper paperwork and labeling reouirements."
II FindingsSU i
- 1. The portion of the allegation that alleged sensitive parts '
on welding rods are possibly damaged through storage at improper temperatures, was substantiated based on the noncompliance history concerning weld rod temperature control documented in past IE Inspection Reports. No additional weld rod temperature control problems were identified diring this investigation. ' 2a. The portion of the allegation that alleged welding rods l were possibly lost through failure to follow proper t
+
l paperwork w< requirements was not substantiated with regard ' f I to weld rod issue forms. Allegations P-2/13 and P-2/16 i in this Investigation Report address QC record and QC i
, verification problems related to weld rod control.
[ I' 1
,.e -
- b. The portion of the allegt<ation that alleged welding rods were possibly lost through failure to follow proper labeling requirements was not substantiated. No infor-mation was submitted or obtained to define the specific meaning of the alleged concern about labeling require-ments.
Other than referenced, no items of noncompliance or safety i concerns were identified.
?
III Investigation $U ' A. Background $SInformationSU This allegation was interpreted to address two weld rod i concerns: ! t i.
- 1. Weld rods were possibly being damaged by improperty
\ l c on su mpto'*n ; controlling rod temperatures prior to r^ rj ;t': and resulting in unacceptable welds. j
- 2. Weld rods had been Lost because the paperwork and labeling requirements were not being property followed.
Therefore, welds may have been made in<<with incorrect weld rods.
~
t L t' I-These interpretations were based on the fotLowing persone<nel [i-interviews. s
B. PersonnetSSInterviewsSU InterviewSSwithSSIndividuaL3S"A"$U
)(- On February 24, 1981, Individaat "A" who was previously ,
interviewed by representatives of GAP was interviewed. (f /, He stated he observed unaccounted for weld rod (weld i rod without accompanying KE-2 weld control forms) onsite {t and has seen weld rod warming ovens unplugged and not ' being maintained at the proper tm<emperature.
- 2. Individual "A" also stated that during September and October 1979 a pipefitter was not assigned to the weld rod issue point during the evei<ning shift to account for weld rods. He stated that weld rod and wl< eld i i
issue slips were Left out unattended for anyone to pick [ t up and use. ' On April 22, 1981 Individual "A" provided a written statement attesting to the aforementioned information, I however he requested the statement not be attached to this report. L 1 i V. .
Interviews <$SwithSSIndividualSS"B"SU
*$C On April 14, 1981, Individual "B" who was previously interviewed by representatives of GAP was interviewed.
9( f, He stated Kaiser required weld rod ovens be maintained i at the proper temperatures at aLL times. He said he could not insure that every welder maintained his oven l at the right temperature, but as a supervisor he l i insured his men did. !~
- 2. He stated th-t<<that on occasion weld rod issue slips (KE-2 Forms) were lost and in those cases it was a
' common practice onsite for welders at the time of fabrication to get a blank issue form, falsify it, and present it to the Ka.iser Quality Control Inspectors in order for the weld to pass inspection. He said 1
l i frequently this was done months after the fact by ! Kaiser construction supervisors who falsified weld rod ' issue forms to complete weld documentation packages. \ l l He said by doing this they did not have to cut out and I l I l rework welds. l g 1 b l On April 14, 1981 Individual "B" provided a write < ten statement attesting to the aforementioned information,
^
howee<ver he requested the statement not be attached to I: y 1 l this report. i h i 1
.. CI. Weld $SRodSSTemperatureSU
/. For pressure boundary (pipe) welds the ASME Code Section III 1971 j Article NB-2440 states, " Suitable storage and handling of electrodes, flux and other welding materials shall be maintained. Precautions shaLL be taken to miniinize absorption of moisture by fluxes and cored, fabricated and l
coated electrodes." l ASME C.de Juh*n 22Z' 197/, Aef:s /c NA-4460 states, " Measures shall be established to provide work and examination instructions for handling, storage, shipping and preservation of materials, parts, components, i and appurtenances to prevent damage or deterioration. When necessary for particular products, special protective environments, such as inert gas atmospheres, specific moisture content levels and temperatures, shaLL be provided and their i i existence verified." j i l f l i For structural welds the AWS D1.1-1972 Code, Section 4.9.2 f I states, "ALL electrodes haveing<<having low-hydrogen coverings f conforming to AWS AS.1 shaLL be purchased in hermetically-seated containers or shaLL be dried at least one hour at
, temperatures between 700 F and 800 F before being used. f Electrodes shaLL be dried prior to use if the hermetically-
[ i j seated container shows evidence of damage. Immediately } , after removal from hermetically-seated containers er from L l l drying cvens, electrodes shaLL be stored in ovens a< held at , l a temperature of at least 250 F. E70XX electrodes that are ! i = l
not used within four hours, E80XX within two hours, E90XX within one hour, and E100XX and E110XX within one-half hour after removal from hermetically-sealed containers or removal from a drying or storage oven shall be redried before use. Electrodes which have been wet shaLL not be used." i i The purpose of the low-hydrogen weld rods is to keep hydrogen ; 6 ' out of the weld. Hydrogencouldcauseunderfeadcracking. ; Thus, the above code requirements are intended to minimize fi the moisture,which contains hydrogen, from e<being a @ bed > by the low-hydrogen weld rods. Dee;ay ff.*J in ves *N#4 fheResidentInspectorreviewedthereceiptdocumentation for E7018 (Low hydrogen) weld rod purchased on orders No. 34356, 35720, 37587, 39075, 39382, 39556, 39971, and t 40318. The receipt documentation indicated that the E7018 ! rod had been received in sealed moisture proof containers. pw.%y f4.~2 shVesbysll*4 k l [heResidentIN<nspectorverifiedthatlow drogen electrodes Crods) which had not been isu< sued to the field were clearly i identified and stored in a clean, limited access, and dry area. In addition, in the field issue rooms (rod c< shacks), i the low hydrogen rods were either in sealed containers or in holdingovensattemperaturesabove25(fF. ~ L_ [~ l t l I f I
l T: ';'e
. ..a 4:5 :i ;,..._.......,fortablerodwarmers have been specified for used< near the work activities to maintain the weld rods in a dry condition untit used.
KEI Welding Filler Materials Control Procedure No. SPPM 3.3, Revision 7, paragraphs 3.5.4.2 and 3.5.4.3 respeci<tively ' state:
"When covered electrodes are removed from a holding oven to be issued to welders they shaLL be placed in a portable rod warmer. OnlyoneclassificationandheaUorlotof electrodes shall be stored in each individual portable rod warmer. Each portable rod warmer shall be uniquely marked for identification purposes and shall be checked on a monthly basis to assure that each rod warmer maintains ,
a correct temperature between 175'F and 4000F ." - I "ALL covered electrodes exposed to ambient conditions for more than four hours without coming in direct contact with water shaLL be returned to central storage for rebaking. . ."
,The Resident Inspector reviewed the December,1980 record for the Daily Temperature Check of holding ovens No. W50, h W27, W38, W25, W39, W19, W11, and W26. The record indicates that oven No. W50 was [ F under the specified 2508F on three of the 22 days checked; oven No. W25 was SOF under the '
specified 250 F, one day out of 22; oven W39 was 150F under ' f l
~
the specified 250k on one day of out 22; and oven W26 was 10 9 F under the specified 250*F on one day out of 22. The Resident Insps<ector reviewed the record for the Monthly Check of portable rod ovens (warmers). The record indicated that the temperatures of 209 warmers were checked on January 3, 1981 and aht<<that aLL but 15 of the warmers were above ! 250'F. Of those 15 warmers, aLL were 2000F or higher. i Dewisy # ;! in/c'I')*Y** [heResidentInspectoralsoobservedthatunacceptablerod warmers in the field issur<e rooms, were property tagged and segregated in a clearly marked area. The Licensee has been cited in the past with noncompliances by the NRC as identified in the following IE Inspection Reports- i i I t Number $U CitedSSNoncomplianceSU l.
}
75-05 Holding oven contained both stainless steel and Low hydrogen carbon steel rod 76-07 (1) Portable electrode (warmer) oven not a plugged in and approximately 10 f electrodes were not in the warmer. I. f l t
1 3 . .
. ., - , n s 3 ,.
t \
.~ s.
- s Number $U CitedSSNoncomplianceSU <
, :~
4 f (2) Two 50 lb. cans of Lo'w hjorogen ~' , (7018) electro:!esha'dholesinIhem and several cans were damaged. ' '
/
i L (3) Documentation for tenperature , r
~
calibration for three weld rod ! t,. holding ovens was.not available. '
'^'
r ( 76-11 Partially burned and unburned weld rod was found lying outside containers or " ovens in several locations in the plant. h 77-02 Holding oven cor.tained both stainless - steel and low hydrogen electrodes. N Holding oven contained both stainiess <<.< 79-07 (1) Approximately three dozen partial, damaged, or unus'ed electrodes were ! found lying on the floor, =caffolding, and in a cable tray. _ I. I i, i P '
y : . ), > l a y
\-
t -- Numb'r$U e y CitedSSNoncomplianceSU (2) Three rod ovens were not _.u l' provided with thermometers
.7 for directly measuring i oven temperatures.
4 7 - 2
, \ ,
(3) Calibration of two rod i ovens was past due. (3) Calibration of two rod ovens <<< e'
, was past due.<<<
- 79-15 (1) Filler materiald< and consumable inserts maintained in ovens and on shelves without
, traceability to heat / Lot I
t nume<bers. ' r t u : r (2) Filter me<aterial heating I
~
'f . ,
ovens contained foed. f
. f
.' i. I i , b i i 6 N 4 L k 1
,; ~[ y _ - 7. , e , ,
Number $U CitedSSNoncomplianceSU (3) 50 containers of noncon-forming weld rod was not identified as nonconforming. 80-07 Two portable warmers were not plugged in. 80-14 One portable o< rod warmer was not po< tugged in. 80-19 one portable rod warmer was not plugged in. The citations concerning portable rod warmers not being plugged in and holding ovens containing different types , fo<<of rods were violations of site procedures and not < ASME or AWS Codes. l l The RIII inspectors identified no additional items of noncompliance or significant concerns relevant to weld rod temperature controls. I ip h e v. I I: f l f
2a. WeldSSRodSSPaperworkSSandSSLabelingSSRequirementsSU The paperwork used to account for weld rod was the KEI-2 form (weld rod issue slip). The KEI-2 form required the welder's, the welder's foreman, and the weld rod issuer's e signatures, which permitted the welder to obtain weld rods for a specific weld from the rod shack (field + t storeroom). 6 A. i i t l l i l I i i t V'* h' ( .. F .: r l . i
- The RIII inspector reviewed the following KEI-2 forms for evidence that indicated the weld rods had not been properly accounted ori< the
. i KEI-2 forms had f<been falsified.
KEI-2 No. WeldSSDrawing$SNo.5U RodSSIssue$SDateSU 1 186553 PSK-1HG-11 Sept. 1979 186554 PSK-1HG-11 Sept. 1979 , l ' 198846 PSK-1HG-11 Sept. 1979 198847 PSK-1HG-11 Sept. 1979 I i 196277 PSK-1HG-1 Sept. 1979 196276 PSK-1HG-1 Sept. 1979 198800 M462-1-HG-1 Sept. 1979 198797 M462-1-HG-1 Sept. 1979 185819 PSK-1MS-34 Oct. 1979 185843 PSK-1MS-34 Oct. 1979 ff58V/ Oct. 1979 l WM4 PSK-1MS-34 185818 PSK-1MS-34 Oct. 1979 185763 PSK-1MS-34 Oct. 1979 PSK-1MS-34 Oct. 1979 f 185856 ! 185864 PSK-1MS-34 Oct. 1979 L 195934 1MS-37 Oct. 1979 { h M 196329 1MS-36 Sept. 1979 L r. y 1
??:7 . c.o ; C ,.. **'?
196359 1MS-36 Sept. 1979 196330 1MS-36 Sept. 1979 195868 1MS-37 Oct. 1979 186618 1MS-35 Oct. 1979 198958 M471-5-RR-207 Sept. 1979 , 198957 M471-5-RR-207 Sept. 1979 I 196314 M471-4-RR-170 Oct.1979 196436 M471-4-RR-170 Oct. 1979 1 105242 PSK-WR-37 Oct.197/ 198973 M-148-WR-40 Sept.1979 198784 M-148-WR-40 Sept.1979 198972 M-148-WR-40 Sept. 1979 185910 JSK-M-447-WR-75 Oct. 1979 i 1 I 195843 /SK-WR-53 Oct . 1979 2 195844 JSK-WR-53 Oct. 1979 195859 M-447-WR-53 Oct . 1979 195860 M-447-WR-53 Oct. 1979 194906 PSK-1WS-71 Oct. 1979 !
- ) 170145 PSK-1WR-06A14 Oct . 1979 i i
199448 PSK-WR-9 Oct.1979 [ 199651 PSK-1WR-80 Sept. 1979 1 185884 M148-WR-41 Oct. 1979 l 186707 M148-WR-42 Oct. 1979 I n 195853 M447-WR-71 Oct. 1979
186632 PSK-WR-45 Oct. 1979 185917 M447-WR-49 Oct. 1979 195758 PSK-1WR-47 Oct. 1979 186619 1MS-35 Oct . 1979 i 195134 M-471 RR (93) Oct. 1979 188597 M-471-12-RR(93) Oct. 1979 i i 195130 M-471-12-RR(99) Oct. 1979 i 195138 M-471-12-RR(99) Oct. 1979 ! 188595 M-471-12-RR (99) Oct. 1979 b AL L of these KEI-2 forms were signed (usually by initials or mark) in the space designated for the rod issuer which indicated that the respective welding rods had been pro-perty accounted by the assigned construction (non-Quality ' l Control, non-QC) personnel. The RIII inspector reviewed f several other KEI-2 forms of different time periods to compare the consistency of signatures and the types of inks ; _ used. None of these KEI-2 forms appeared to be falsified. f i , The RIII inspector could not determine if the above KEI-2 l l I l forms were for day shift or evening shift activities, u The KEI-2 forms required no QC signatures and were there-l , fore not GC records which would signify GC verifications b ( that the corrut weld rods were used. The QC verifica-h, tions of weld rod were required to be made at the place
, I.
\ l i : l { 2. c- [ 1
~
and time of the actual weld activity and documented on the KEI-1 forms (weld inspection records). i t I i-f I l-l)~ b
The findings related to allegations P-2/13 and P-2/16 addressed in this Investigation Report No. 81-13 revealed the following paperwork deficiencies concerning KEI-1 forms and the respective weld rod verifications by QC inspectors: . (1) QC inspection criteria had been improperly l detec<ted or designated as not applicable from } t the KEI-1 forms (QC records). (2) KEI-1 forms (QC records) had been improperly altered based on information on KEI-2 forms (non-QC records). i These deficiencies have been identified as items of i noncompliance. f I
- 26. Neither the personnel interviews, the record reviews, l or the observation of activities related to weld rod l control identified any specific meaning of the alleged concern about labeling requirements. Therefore, this concern was not substantiated.
1. I' :
DRAFT /db I Allegation No. 17
" Union pipefitters and PM employees have been intimidated by fear of utility and industrywide reprisals should they complain about the QA practices."
II Findings j This allegation was not substantiated. The individuals interviewed by GAP were contacted and they denied being intimidated or subjected to industry-wide reprisals for their critcism of ee-34mmer QA ' practices. III Investigation i A. Background Information l. t None f _; . - - 7 B. Personnel Interviews - i l Interview of Individuals "A" and "B" I, h: On April 22 and 24, 1981, Individuals "A" and "B", both union pipefitters were contacted. They stated they had not been in-timidated or subjected to industry-wide reprisals for their i
DRAFT /db criticism of QA practices at Zimmer. Individuals "A" and "B" both stated they were fired in January 1980 as a result of Applegate's investigation into their involvement in time card cheating, but since then have been re-employed by.CG&E subcon-tractors at Zimmer and other CG&E sites. Interview of William Schwiers l 4 l On January 16, 1981, William Schwiers, QA Manager, CG&E was I interviewed during another related investigation. He was asked to provide the names and current place of employment for Kaiser QC inspector's who had left the site since January 1,1979. A list was provided which indicated a total of twenty-three QC inspectors had left the site since that date. Fifteen were employed at other nuclear power plants under construction, two i were employed as QC inspectors in defense-related industries, i and there was no known place of employment for the remaining six inspectors. Schwiers said there has been no attempt by CG&E to engage in any form of industry-wide reprisals against employees who left Zimmer. . P l 1 Interview of Ernest Aldredge i On April 10, 1980, Ernest Aldredge, President, Peabody Magnaflux !.. t (PM), was interviewed and stated that neither PM or its employees r 1 had not been subjected to any reprisals by CG&E or other utilities [ f f
DRAFT /db for their work at Zimmer. Aldredge stated he was contacted by Private Investigator Thomas Applegate who asked him about the termination of PM't contract at Zimmer. Aldredge stated he told Applegate the situation at Zimmer affected PM's performance record in the industry. Aldredge stated the contract was , terminated because of production problems which he attributed I to a lack of adequate staffing on PM's part, and frequent breakdown of PM's onsite film processing machine. A1 dredge also said he was advised by Charles Wood, the PM Cincinnati Office Manager, that NRC had audited PM's records onsite and found discrepancies. A1 dredge said he talked to Applegate about PM being removed from other contractor's bid lists because of the work at Zimmer, but he was referring to their poor performance record at Zimmer affecting other contracts. Aldredge stated he was not referring to any systematic attempt by CG&E to engage j i in any intimidation or reprisals against PM for its work onsite. j i Aldredge stated during the conversation with Applegate he was l i referring to their professional and business reputation of PM ' not being tarnished, and apparently Applegate misunderstood what he said and falsely accused CG&E of engaging in industry-wide intimidation of PM. tt i f
- C. Record Reviews t
None i\ b i t h
1;hATT/db D. Field Observations None E. Acceptance Criteria t i None. t k i i i I l t i l , e l 1. I t
DRAFT /db I Allegation 18 "A KEI employee has kept a detailed journal of safety hazards and incidents at Zimmer." II Findings This allegation was unsubstantiated. The individual who was alleged i to have kept a journal of safety hazards and incidents at Zimmer ' stated the journal was a field inspection notebook. He said he used it to record deficiencies he identified during system walk-downs of the radiation waste disposal system. He said all of the deficiencies he identified were corrected by the licensee. III Investigation l I t A. Background Information ' i None. i
}
B. Personnel Interviews I-t t. Interview with Thomas Applegate F
~
f t' On January 29, 1980, Thomas Applegate was interviewed and i I, stated an individual with a last name of Yohan told him he ! 6 l ..n.n. . ,: .. . . - , - . - - . . - + - - - , - , - , n -
i DRAFT /db maintained a detailed journal of safety defects while employed ' as a Radiation Waste Chemistry Technician at Zimmer. Interview with Senior Resident Inspector i i On February 2,1981, Thomas Daniels, Senior Resident Inspector, l, NRC, was interviewed and stated he reviewed CF&E personnel records and found an individual named Yohan Reiter. He said i Reiter was employed employed by Westinghouse, Inc. in Ankara, Brazil. Reiter was employed at Zimmer at the time Thomas Applegate was onsite. Interview with Yohan Writer On February 5, 1981, Yohan Reiter, Westinghouse, Inc., Ankara, t Brazil, was telephonically interviewed. He stated he was i formerly employed as a Radiation Chemistry Technician (RCT)'at I r Zimmer. He said he recalled meeting Thomas Applegate in the :
}
Radiation Waste Disposal area during a routine inspection. He I also recalled commenting to Applegate that his field notebook was his " paper brain" in which he recorded the results of his , field inspection. He said the notebook listed deficiencies he L identified during system walk-downs of the radiation waste [ f disposal system which is a non-safety related system of the [ plant. Reiter said he used the notebook to record deficiencies, y such as malfunctioning ;auges or acid eating through floor p F.
DRAFT /db tiles, which were then recorded on a Equipment Service List (ESL) and corrected by the plant maintenance staff. He added that during meetings with his supervisor, Dean Erickson, and other members of the Radiation Protection Department Staff the adequacy of the corrective action was discussed. He said he was not keeping any detailed journal of ffety defects at the plant and if he had any concern for the safe operation of the , i plant he would have contacted the NRC on his own behalf. l t C. Record Reviews None. D. Field Observations None. . j E. Acceptance Criteria l l I l i None. ' l i i
k , (/, h' Jnterview of Anthony Pallon On August 13, 1981, Anthony Pallon, Sr. ==. ;. 6..' sed by the NRC. Pallon stated he was employed at Zimmer as a Quality Assurance Engineer) Welding / Nondestructive Examinatiord(f rom April 1, 1977 to July 8,1980. He j stated his position involved the review of PM radiographic reports of examination for pipe welds at the plant. Pallon stated he did not consis- ! IW tently over-ride PM $4(r their weld determinatiorvat Zimmer, and on the j contrary, frequently rejected welds that PM found acceptable. He said, on less than ten occasions PM radiographers identified nonconforming vendor welds while examining an adjacent Kaiser weld. He said in each instance he directed the nonconforming weld to be repaired or replaced. He stated he could not make a determination that twenty percent of the prefabricated
~
pipe we'Lds in the plant (3Fs#h osa defective, since PM did not radiograph them,
- .d th;r#^ - e did not review the radiographs fe J. ;
a -_W0t/40
; tdand id -
D NY %IFIED . l not make .tatement about their acceptability. l pppgtL /IA l Pallon sai PM'scontractatZimmerwasnotrenewed'-feril*"[sndNuclear f j Energy Services (NES) took control of the radiography work at Zimmer,e th.- ! t4,8= He attributed this to poor management of the PM operation at Zimmeg coupled with equipment problems which affected PM's ability to perform the i i ! required amount of radiographic examinations. He said he privately told PM [t personnel about this months before the contract was terrainated but they took .. j no action (i.e. hiring of additional personnel and repair of the film pro- [ cessing machine) to f $l increas pro uction at the site. I L 4
} AS' fn{
.On August 10, 1981, Thomas A. McKenna, tructural Project Engineer, Zimmer, Sargent&LundyEngineers[wasinterviewedbytheNRC'fftG7$$ftFW McKenna s ated th lY Iy (M Anf-DDC-712 M waived nondestructive examination of antil:::r 5:: : sa Sv/NA
. wc walkways in the primary containment area as written in 1975 because at time the walkway 3supperted personnet .T.e..... 8 and had no other appendages '
affixed to them. McKenna said in hindsight a better explanation other than
" ease of construction" could have been written on the DDC, since there was !
an engineering basis for the decision UE!the beam supported minimal Loads). s He said S&L inferred that the waiver of NDE on these AWS welds did not con- ' yd!P stitute a waiver of other quality requirement isual inspection of the vM,% weldsf equired by AWS code. McKenna stated since 1975 there has been extensive redesign ( of the suppres-sionpoolareaandth[beamsnowsupportsafety-relatedpipe' supports,HVAC, an electrical cable trayysupport hangers. In April 1981, individuals on site t questioned the quality of all of these welds and it was found during visual ! inspections that the welds were of poor quality and the required documenta-i tion of quality inspections could not be found. He said these nonconforming [ condition (W Ad (W l currently being addressed and corrected % the previous We waiving nondestruction examinations for these welds was rescinded on May 18,1981 by i BUC 2635 o the welds wiLL be repained)and e'j - O radiograph or magnetic pa' r ticle testk McKenna reviewed NRs 5476, 77, and 79 and stated I
/)/E A W of tet-712 addressed item 1 on these NRs concerning nondestructive examination of the welds. He said however, it did not waiver other nonconformin0 con- f ppdTiflE0 tWTh6 tjR
[ dition , such as traceability of weld filter metal, eveidence of fit-up in-spection of the welds and that the M9:ts...endth:tt$weldswerenot h visually acceptable to AWS criteria. LcKenna stated the voiding of this NR i
./
hMs M b ppl piths -
. based on the pr6gwas improper and -he, as the Architect-Engineer, would not have approved O disposition because would be signing off on a " bad set of welds". He said S&L does not receive voided Nonconformance Reports
[bibtRfCG1%' f rom Zimmer fo eview. However, he has learned that the voiding of NRs has been identified as a major problem during the current investigation at Zimmer. l f G e O O t t 6 I l l i i t ! l l 1 i I f' p n
. l.
I
- 16. The RIII inspector reviewed the QC installation records for the diesel generator cooling water, starting air, and fuel oil piping. The records indicated that a large number of in process -
QC inspections had not been performed for poruproper pipe fit up, proper weld procedure, proper weld filter metal (traceability), i welder qualification, etc. These inspection critei<ria, which are specified on the installation record (KEI-1 form), were j i required by the ASME Code, Section III-1971 Edition, Winter 1972 : Addenda Articles NA-4130(a), NA-4420, NA-4510, NA-4442.1, NB-4122, NA-4451, NB-4230, and NB-3661.5(b) .
- a. Some of the inspections, which had not been performed, 4 .
were documented on QA Surveillance Reports, (SR). Sr['s
#2367, #2370, #2380 and #2412, identified 39 welds, in the diersel generator subsystems, for which required l in process inspections had not been performed.
l ! I In addition, the licensee had a partial listing of over 400 socket welds (including systems other than the diesel generator) for which inspections for proper pipe fit up for claanliness, mismatch, and socket engagement had not , been performed. j - l [ .' l [ t i I
The ASME Code Section III-1971 Edition, Article NB-3661.5(b) states " . . . A gap of approc<ximately 1/16 inch shaLL be provided between the end of the pipe and the bottom of the socket before welding." i l H. J. Kaiser Procedure No. SPPM 4.6 Rev. 8, paragraph 6.2.1 3 states"ALLweldsshaLLbeinspectedatthefollowingstajes:
. . .At fit up for cleanliness, mismatch, and minimum socket engagement. Socket welds shalL have an approximateL< end :
gap of 1/16" prior to Welding for all sizes." Based on the SIS Report dated November 14, 1979 from the Authorized Nuclear Inspector, ANI, from the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, and the H. J. Kaiser . i l response letter dated De-<cember 4,1979 an agreement was j made that 20 of the unverified socket welds would be selected t at random to be radiographed to verify proper fit up. One { 2367, 2370, 2380, ofthe39weldsidentifiedonSRfNo. and 2412 was chosen tob< be radiographed. No design justifi-t cation was provided to allow verification based on only 20 1
?
radiographs. 1 i A second SIS Report dated Febu<ruary 11, 1981 from the ANI - indicated that additional welds were made, after December 4, 7 1979, without verification of fitup. The ANI indicated that t, all of the welds, for which the fit up was not verified after h. I: December 4, 1979, should be radiographed. i I l ! 2
The lack of justification for the 20 radiographs and recurrence of in process fit ups not being verified, ' reflect inadequate corrective actions. I
- b. The records for the diesel generator system indicated that final visual inspections, of the applicable welds, were
,I performed. '
ff a KJCZ-/ Seree1 (weld onspesf.**n teeordrh o'nclleafe/ C. [ personnel transferred information written on KEI-2 forms' (weld rod issue slips) to KEI-1 forms 0.;'d. ...y r. .;., r::: JJ as justification for weld rod traceability, welding dates, and welder gul<alification verification. In essence, the KEI-2 form was a construction document used by the welders to obtain weld rod from the storage personnel. , The QC significance of the KEI-2 form was that the QC f inspectors were allowed to transfer the weld rod heat number, f en 64 ktC=% $wne ( enteredj by the storage personnel, to the KEI-1 form (QC I weld record) at the time and place of the weld activity only. Therefore, any information transferred from the KEI-2 [ form to any QC document after the time of or away from the f { weld activity would not be credible QC verifict<ations. In addition, the RIII inspector noted a considerable number W ^ of discrepancies between the QC deld records, KEI-1 forms, 3
A and the weld ro) issue forms, KEI-2 forms. The records indicated discrepancies between the weld rod heat numbers used, identification of the welders perfom<rming the welds, and dates the welds were made. The Document Records personnel wereresolvingthesediscrepanciesy<byconsp#juously altering the KEI-1 forms to match the KEI-2 forms. In effect the QC records, which supposedly provide independent , verification, were being changed to conform with Construction
^
Department records. The alterations appeared to ba<e arbitrary in that some of the welds within a certi<ain Line were changed, but the other welds of identical circumstances were not changed. i The following are examples of the altered records: 1
- I (1) Welder $SandSSRodSSHeatSSNumber$S(usedSSfor$Straceability)$U j ChangesSU (a) Drawing No. M-479-3-DG-121 for Line 1DGD9AB-1/2 i I,
weld records for welds A-4 thru A-21 which, j according to QA inspector No. 81, were made by welder K0E using weld rod heat No. 065118 during March 1978. Additional weld rod issue forms f F t b' l
. F l r I
i Y
(N o . 126508, 126509, 126510, 126511, 126884, 88 126995,and126890) exist which indicate welder LFC, using weld rod heat No. 77402, may have worked on welds A-4 thru A-21. Because of these rod issue forms, on January 1981, the Documents Records personnel changed the QA records to include welder ' LFC and rod heat number 77402 on welds A-4 thru j i A-13, A-18, A-20 and A-21. No explanation was i given why the records for welds A-14 thru A-17 and A-19 were not changed. The RIII inspector verified that only welder identification symbol, K0E, appears near the welds i-<n question. (b) Drawing M-47 DG-119 for Line 1DG7AB-1/2 contains weld records w<for welds A-4 thru A-21 which, I f
}
according to QA inspector No. 81, were made by j i welder LJP during March 1978. Weld rod issue i forms (KEI-2) No. 123346 and 119061, enclosed with j the drawing, showed welder LJP may have worked on welds A-4 thru A-6, A-8 thru A-11j and A-15 thru A-17. Weld rod issue form No. 119066 indicates i Awe welder K0E hve worked on welds A-l* thru A-21. t l As a result of these KEI-2 forms, the Document ; l-Records personnel changed the QA records on ' I i t
January 29, 1981 for welds A-6, A-7, A-13, A-14 and A-18 thru A-21 by crossing out the welder symbot J LfP and the date March 29, 1978 and replacing them with the welder symbol K0E and date March 22, 1978 respectively. No explanation was given why the records for welds A-4, A-5, A-8 thru A-12 and A-15 thru A-17 were not changed. The inspector verified that only welder identification symbol LJP appeared near aLL the welds. l (c) KEl-1 form for weld number 79DG on line 10G37AA2-1/2 showed the heat number of the consumb<able insert Os W4/ used was 406491. On January 26, 1981, the number was co<rossed out and changed to 6058921 to agree with KEI-2 form No. 123099. The weld number written ! on the gold copy of the KEI-2 form No. 123099 was too faint to read. The inspector checked with the Welding Department, but the original (white copy) of KEI-2 number 123099 could not be located. (2) WeldSSDatesSSchangesSU (a) The KEI-1 form, for weld A-7 on line 1DG5AB-1/2, indicated the final weld inspection was performed by QA inspector No. 81 on April 5, 1978. The date was crossed out and changed,to April 6,1978 on of January 27, 1981 because Apn)(wl<etd rod issue S
form )(No. 118920)( which indicates welder LJP may have worked on A-7 on April 6, 1978. (b) The KEI-1 form, for weld A-20 on Line 1DGD2AB-1/2, indicated final weld inspection was performed by ; QA inspector No. 81 on April 10, 1978. The date was crossed out and changed to April 11, 1978 on January 27, 1981 because of A' weld rod issue form i
)No.123834X which indicates welder LJP may have worked on A-20 on April 11,1978.
The Licensee was previously cited in IE Inspection Report 50-358/79-15-12 for transferring d I information from KEI QC inspector's noteboks to KEI-1 i
\ forms. j I
- d. No apparent actions were taken to assure that the proper weld procedure was used on any of unverified in process weld l
activities. I Failure to take corrective actions when weld procedures were not verified and failure to take adequate corrective actions when proper pipe fit-up, weld filter metal (traceability), and
;olut:f.d es are welder qualification were not verified, .5e contrary to 3 ,
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI and the Wm. H. Zimmer QA A Manual, Section 16.1 as described in the Appendix to the report transmittal letter. l pst/51-is-as) i
?
INV000 - F DRAFT /so ITEM OF NONCOMPLIANCE DRAFT 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XV, states that, " Measures shall be established to control materials, parts, or componets which do not conforin to requirements in order to prevent their inadvertent use or installation. , These measures shall include, as appropriate, procedures for identification, n i G. ;:n ra. V documentation, i,edergation, disposition, and modification to affected ! organizations,". ' The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 17.2.15, Revision 15, dated August 1976, states that, "The QA program establishes measures to control materials, parts, components, services, or activities which do not conform to requirements of appropriate __ documents. Written administrative and quality assurance procedures shall control the identification, documentation, segregation, review, disposition, and notification to affected organizations. The measures ensure that CG&E's Suppliers / Contractors are responsible for establishing procedures ; for controlling nonconforming items at their respected facilities to 4 i include shipment of deficient items to ZPS-1. Nonconformance reports
.. u-dispositioned "except as is," repair, or rework, are made part of the p r.c.... < ;
inspection records and folded with the hardware to the utility. Items i received, inspected, and excepted at the site are ' '
'to similar nonconformancecontrolsandapproriatecontrolhisposition", 3 ,.
i~ N Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, Quality Assurance Division, "W.H. , l t Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Quality Assur.ance Manual" dated October 31, i 1980, Section 15, states that, "HJK is repsonible for identifying and t-
~ '
DRAFT
' ' INV000 _I .D - l T $*) .O E.. vs R, _) ,
repua64ugnuutunformancesskreceivinginspection, construction,or testing activities which are delegated to HJK,."; and "HJK inspectors or Quality Assurance Yhgineers prepare a Nonconformance Report whenever a condic in. t a. 4dentified which represents a deviation from drawings, p.yVr% D'.nS sprecifications, procedures, or work construction. HJK Construction Engineering provides the disposition for the nonconformance, and the NR is processed in accordance with QA Procedure 15-QAS-01g" t Contrary to the above, nonconformauce reports were initiated by an inspector and not entered into the HJK nonconformance reporting system, nonconformance reports were erroneously voided byfor at the direction of the 3 HJK QA manager,qgd onconforming conditions identified on nonconformance reports were improperly dispositioned as " h as is" when " rework" was required.
,vu , ,.w..a ..w The arri~rmKIToft actions were not in accordance with HJK procedural require-li ments, and a( a repeat of similar noncompliances identified in Region III Reports No. 50-358/80-05 and No. 50-358/80-25. h
\ ,
This is a Severity Level II violation (Supplement II). I D R A..,.--. H v t I l l s
6
. C- ( $ dW
/
4 4 .
.t, _. _ _ __ / s l
1 _ _ _ _ __ .J -2 5'41- )
~i f
l. 9-1cc.w
- a. d y'dt. m. lu ild , nua,,y IMili> _ ,
,. c. g_
l
- s. sw l.y- sd.
M % 9p' dr'ur ' _4y% _g h)
. .u.c ud waH -16km__ --
- +. $. ht fu. ._.w't!. c. - s, Jeu- ~
$v__'.a.r.m1.t...-,_luh l. $. A. d., '
D DCis . U.... . _$.u. . u
!, _. _ mf / e__ d_. u . _ _ ._ _ _.
u - U M u'.: > ,v d, + M .._ e.4.N w .,=. .. __ibdcw(9 f Qop e. 5'. _ ,
--- . . - - . .. . . . - _ - _ -. ,r
- y. ._-.
-..(p.-l39 -
i e-.
- i. _ _$._.%.v.rar .
o._....._....._..
- k. ,_43 S 7~4 LU_S.t C AJT . /t ric /'. , :Qh10 ** c 4 J. ILJ8 8:- _
'[
.. ..__3/g._.._S.S ---ioc. .ra. _u.m. w.r. . 4_a,e._s. _..c. u_.r... o & 7"
/o__m a x.._c..__ h_e . ..
9
._ _ _ . b u. .c. i< L c. S.._............_..____._-.;..,._-
t .~ ,
.-...YO....-_..
- 4. d;>
d g k , tdAa d. Inf., h,.i;gcO y..wh:cuuie Ocy . . . = . _ , , . . . . . .. . . . . _ . . . .
._.-.....e r
._.w-....,.. '
_....=_..----.:, v .. 3 6 he e . _.h .. e . h. N
- I W * ,.N.h' *N 4 OW*
9
.~he ,aa . m..g, e
. +
p g.h - m $-->> ....N '. . re. 4 p
~ '
- i
......--................Nh.-.... ~ ~
.- .~-. ..
t c
- 4;
(.
.e . : . .
C
* ' S CB 4 I G. /J L M. - 6.N)).
-f,.
- _N 0 @ _. _._
'[ [.. h)S_) /JR.
, .;_ . - 0
.J . _ -_
Ajo
'I .
i
- 4. NC>
1
- 6. . , - --. _ %. .. w,n.. - . .
th.t@) . -. _.. . .. t, _ - .
. . x -
.E 5...---
-. . . - -..-. - .- . . - - - - . . . . _ . -_ - . . 2. _- I do .. O-
. .). . . . . - - . - . 3v d. . .. . . . .- - _
..h. . _ . .Y.O. ,..\.d.)).A.. .N.
Y _ . }?p Lf.t&2f; % . J. h. 1Q 91..G . _ ._ _. ...) _.. _ .. . ._._
- b. 00
^
.. . .+. . _ {0 0 ) _. 40 Y. In b . /Aes . Y... , . 6.1. .. ._ ' . A. Ifi ...
.. Iu .._. .
E
. { .0-tszuL '. , i cnC> N' ..C6 si E. Mf&.'" f. ./A0.NQdhtoJ.K o
.c _ .-
h, JMwn &t\- LLC't f . ty tf(Kt, C 4 . ... . A .11 @. /. jl) g ..
......4w . . . . . . *e. .
..d'**
e' # ,
.. ..- . . . . .---. 20kh . - .. . . _ . . . . . .-
-e'D.6.^.6 . =. . .. *. -N 'N 6 e .M=.-M=.h. . ... .h.. . h.u. e m.- - . . .
4 w..s....g ,ge, ,, , g ,
.Md*-OM O *** * .h. .% . g
- y. . ah6 g e a g - g t
ee - . . - , , = - . . -- . . .. . 8 l . . . . . . _ . . . . P mum 6a m
,6
PIPEFITTER QUESTIONS .i 1 j 1) How long have you been an employee.at Wm. H. Zimmer Station? l i 2) Are you aware of any valve in the Residual Heat Removal System that was
" Bumped" by a pipefitter and broken? Thus, raising questions about the quality of the metal for valves. If so, can you identify the broken valve j and what were the questions?
(Applegate Allegation #4) k l
- 3) Have you seen anyone who appeared to be drinking, drunk, or using drugs on I the site? Also, do you know of any cases in which laborers were hired who l were prone to violence? If so, describe the acts of violence.
{ (Applegate Allegation #14)
- 4) Have you ever been intimidated by fear of the utility (CGEE) and/or industry wide reprisals for complaining about QA practices?
j (Applegate Allegation #17)
- 5) Have you ever been intimidated for critizing or complaining about QA prac-tices? If so, by whom? What were the specifics about the concern and the intimidation?
i (Applegate Allegation #17) l
! 6) Do you have any knowledge and/or concerns about the quality or nuclear safety of the Zimmer Station?
(Applegate Allegation #19) <i48 h
&!g 9.. .,.h e, w f[ //
-/r'
, u
,e p- y' W
, s fY J
4, ' A
'p< p
~ . _ _ . . _ .
l Q / b , 9 ', p k , ore giv ,l { v . (; g,p - y i & [ q Q , ,) ; 3, \w - i.u r l? .
,, 7 - p w N ,. g r. s pi V7 mm/ a ~ . . . .
sit.~.*,g/ a .. - q~ p gin. e Id'"1
$c < .
#{,gX
, VJ '
c...u Ni 3;r }
- p. t .
9-' *
/ '
f f(ap e ,(y J j,s.s,{}
- ( s. f / t- ( E' ?
1
- Q > (j- ? vf g if 4 "
- I y Gif ,, ,ji N
4 l t
' .f * -
b g e.S
" b,,fh, b ("7 p,.y-k
~
i . f C , I -
$A11 )per n+s o/7 4
4 l i e e
I 00-p (4 1 ,jo U Y OJ I ( EMPLOYEES TERMINATED FOR TIME CHEATING
& Y
- 1) How ong were you an employee at Wm. H. Zimmer Station?
i
- 2) To your knowledge, what was the reason you were fired?
- 3) Were you involved with QA/QC while employed at Wm. H. Zimmer Station? If ~
I. so, what were your perceptions of QA7 -
- 4) Were you ever critical of plant QA/QC and Safety? Was your criticism a contributing fa'.: tor to your dismissal (firing)?
(Applegate Allegation #15) $ 6*1O,,, v Y n '
; cv y.,
'i v' l-}( C g (5 .
l g ' N ( g,[ y ) g 7 2 g/Y y p i e 4 fuf 4 i I
"a 6
e Y f 9 f i Ce *~ 3 n '*** l MS , f
}\l0 -
I,\ i
\ Ly le .,M
\ .
A:::e n& ,4.n > h \, &n~L 7,, .A m .
, \
a f
. 10 .s n' '1 h l
- 4 L> tug
- .Nt; f
-Q g/W <l N
ss << f - t I. L ' *'l f($ at _C 4.. d n yf /l n.; ct ~ h, y. V. w De 1\ /L.aA-A v~ {l & S*TD 7br r q,a j, f( g A '
- sthc.n?a , &,-g) %.
e
/) * }
W E~l% u - *Ze 6% b 8
,c/- )t
[/ p i,<. -.y I?f y" sp B c ul &Lx %% w/ p/ce.s. 7 ~, y, a' r w 5 , y " " ,e ~ /
%, .A t, c- p ph .e c 2...
(Av5 +0s A< g u - /iuay/.r7 a
.4./fu g)jJ s'< <~<~6, g,p.n ~te,in<.r,s/y<v Mc~ ,ew- <#, - , ~ 3 W 6- 4 ~f ., h;7 . J yrry. . . ,p,4.p,., , .-
tu./ f
~ - _ . - --
7 p " 2.,4
> (- l _
_ .. . .. pCR. . c... .
/ 92:7 J .19 77.- - dhps-..--.-. .-
l . . . ... . -. .Ro. s. . J.- . j 9. n.. f. j.) ?. 9.-.-.... _ f go 9 2... d d. y . - . - i t
--.- .j -. ...
i, _. l-I 1
, L., w 4 J. u. -
ia . r #Ly l ( [ h ! 6 Ph = 6mde e >e
.---. paw 9
a..*em== e e.- ..ei e--
._..-.o_e-== .. em W
.O mm -
O6 6 N 4 t
.~.- . . . . - _ e 8Oh G . 6 g.e e
.Sh 6 eme 6 --
SS h e@e ehmi.e e m Ms.M -e6.he.hm= h. _e.e 6. 6 - m l 4 e M**-*** e-- ,e .e 6we . ..m. .e . - . . ewe = .> see h .nh -..m..p _r-em.e.a....m.. .e g -e m. __ a.m .M e e e e
**
- 6
.M p e e . e em .- eemr e m %e 6
- S.me -
m ea.m .ee hee m .4.. u. m e D. .
.e p a 4.
- O M*G G
m** * * " * * * *N' * * =* * ~m. .u.e w- <_. w. m ww.%. - .-.. e--- . @. .,m. e.. w e e m. . . 6*
- a@ G hae N e-p W. .m .e-.-
eee.eb ., e .m..g..g. ,, e
2 e, 44 dJ- m &4 +8W r W --- - eM 4wrm=
, (.I c i
", ** + S*% " er a e ' Ww 4
r il . 1 g Mk fy * ?y -i d p.d*l {p fo -
~ww ' ,&_yfy.,ntw ,
t [__
, QW& S-93 4~, A (
_./w L~~<e___yw .
- ~
i - I . - __.
'~'--
***M- p
. c - -
O M _ . . h'*b -]'" . - _ . ... . _ ... ._ _ __ _____
* * * '~ *
} *) . _ . .
ph +gaur =w - I t
a J* PEABODY MAGNAFLUX EMPLOYEES { j i:
- 1) How long were your an employee at Wm. H. Zimmer?
- 2) Were you ever intimidated by fear of utility (CGCE) and/or industry wide reprisals for complaining about QA practices?
(Applegate Allegation #17)
- 3) Were you ever intimidated for cirtizing or complainirg about QA practices?
If so, by whom? What were the specifics about the concern and the intimi-dation? (Applegate #17) i i l.y*4 CW M*' 'l } h'# pl(J i
\.
t i t i I S e e N
. - _ _ . - ,_ - - ~ - -
. .: .i. . x .
j
~ *
// QC INSPECTORS
(' 4 'i n J l
- 1) How long have you been an employee. at Wm. H. Zimmer Station?
- 2) llave you seen anyone who appeared to be drinking, drunk or urice drugs on n
the site? Also, do you know of any cases in which laborers were hired who j were prone to violence? If se, describe the acts of violenae.$ j (Applegate Allegation #14) ((
- 3) Have you ever been intimidated for critizing or complaining about OA prac-tices? If so, by whom? What were the specifics about the concern and the f intimidation? Yg.j; ~ f4.hr t< O S $4de C"'V'WM #7 (Applegate Allegation p Y S"[#~C'
, J #17k
' jtl= cese v t <m. ptye* < f.n t- n ut' n o., h . ny f , y l
- 4) Have you ever been intimidated by fear of the utility (CGGE) and/or industry i wide reprisals for complaining about QA practices? -
(Applegate Allegation #17)
? yrv fsa. . gp ubf s~e. y'#^'
. p# u a ~./,~y'.2 Y-[$r d'"
-n ~W4 pesry.vc>
d2. q J< ' "
> \w\ / p . .ss fm p~l } f.+, wg rz.ah-e
' f,@ ). 4-a-i p y a%
g g I/.79
'f;/ pr gg -
\ n , ,,,,
g3 n5 p__ s u -- p, y D% {wyc l .-. . . . '. /,pedco/.
, ,; i- e'"'**
. . _f.-
/TC b *
)..y y b
% *# D
** fi a ,, <. a. - -
i . - -
/t0 # *= f C" ar' j
ui , f w sfiz , p. ' l N ~p.
. - we'b e. ',_C- ,,M .h..s .,%.. JE 4
,F C ~
c.- 4 1 .,.. J 4. , hs.. .eJ ' s -I . L -- dd.. .. A. .e .
/.H 4 ~. .e.e . . . .e .- ..e-- *.
I 1 3
]
..e -
O . ... l
-J,
- -- [ ..$ #*
4dh.> } e_.tkom M *$ e g' f $ O meumum eee
- emmee m ow -
*me- ee *4 h me ele m ens 6 -
t 3 6 h eeN
-~~e - ..e-- - . . . . . _- . _ _ _ _ _ _
h et h-en h gg- e m aus.geme _ he m.h g6 - , 4 m& 4Bsee MN-N e 44 68mm eh-
- 66 h eeG & eae m@. a_ m - h og N + p 9 e ge W,eemen g og,.@ eSm m gheM e h6=4 me & Gb+ 6Wath m 66 6mM e
* -
- m summs-=* ee se e - a e meoe+== m.aume e.e mee- = =, *-e e+ ee - w - me au- ee e .=m-e .- em + e me e-en . -w - g +ma ese e e e
' 'e # + mum - em . ain e epee & ee** meem e e . gum em a e-wanne *e,e emme come ve = e e me e Mh,e se6. em up-*
***et*==a+*ee-g es e. ee e ti@ M e
% e aw . e N
- e e+ -- - e. .-
.-..e _. .,, ..%,.. ,
-_ - .. ,e.. w. mm .. .+ mme-...e=-.
ps O
** O 6 GWe+h.rhe W em a he G- 4 en- e e oh -e.6- hem M e m-we ,.&e 6 -o g +.pm,g+w h 6 e gee e .e 4
----4 - , -- p.- ,--
-rm
s- C C l . 3 k ... l H 26 itb Art 15 _ $N Dis 63 ....._. . .. _ . . - . _. 1
/,._ lNEf10To I . k6 kYS/ IAN. . L/ Off) }lfV)TRWl_ . . _ . . _ huw!Nb 0?Astic-ninsd~k.wB69.$gMpengd . _ . -.
I* _RRSA lopm6!kb (hurY_AeoatEms -eMe OFTSR [vN6ThortoddomPMnv54 0F"/Urf/cgp6"
. _..7, QC. uwwa sinFtroJfr&misistem #EMdsyst E_ES&$ h sM&7m9'S. . Of R Ci / DAM &56 .
_._3, _ /VA'b YoidBD -ltriPROM417
._ n, .StL- onsfA3..._ApeM, . ffBxc3._k52_
, - - .-- eri nec.sor > Mar A i.s ex,
- . . .. khhb. .
... .hk e. -
l
, . - . l .. .
J .. _.- l
. . . . . _ V/3lpH Of lV_if, Af'bh ..._. . . . ._. _ --- .
w p.,z .,,n . _ es %veo &m _-. _5tSY5wl tfo InR6 5VIkW . - D }btc _ .. - i Tos'S Vioterse/ nssiR.~RO A's9 . . . 01clmo"t- .. . ... . . ... _ _ . .
- 5. .
9 I 1- ., e-ew'e-+----r'- "7- r- = - - - * ~ ~ -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---
C. C c4MSNTAV/0N' .. -.. - . . . . - _
.m yg . +e . e. e em @- - M msg b _. .. -.._ 0cne N - . . . . . . . . . - . _ . . . _ _ .-. ..-.
$ . - . .. -.. . _. ... . 85/ SA oc7/110-1 Qa7 Rob -. ..
0ps_._.1ino
+ hnW6sA V%Dik..Daostwcau:
?!_g. . . laww To"k air 70 ksrect oo' i \ -_. . _ .hth95- (7R035 sat &C" d . ..
l . ._ . _.- Al 3 Ont G75 # V5W/M M495. ......__.kf# W
. . . . GV/SGGe.. . .. - - . - . . .. . - -
r . N6h Ihd WM,N SBMAAh ..
. . - orAnso%D.M noN OFCowsreunov. . . _.-. ..
S V 9A w N' . . .. .-.. . . .. . . . . - l e e.- -m .. a. o ..o - . . . . ,.m .,. , , -_. , _ , __._,,_p O EM6....e6 h .W G e - h* ..e5 .imm..=ener . . en Or=en-E. "M h* . . We.
. * . = m..hii N ..4 -
p gie t
=== + * . . ... .. . . .
I 1 p*_w . dul' S e e-em S O
.e* .
o
O O l l ( a 3 ~~ d NK d&5$Nnto/AA _ 1.. ~- ~ ~~ C6tE _f A.a2het _. _ _ 4 . w_ A. . . . p
.)
.faea ._
-{~
i m .. >t+E; _ p gjg Ag/w ~
~
~ 7.. - . ..
))RC . . . .
/, .9 W.ot 3, _ .
_. . rhAcwh... a&#o. .: .
~
- - -. - - _ . . . . . - _ _ . . _ p. .. /N/_
- M ,s~- - . . _ . ..
by. _. .. l - - .. _ _ . m=.e-e..ge ,,,
/
f ( y,6)'f;ohdahif ..~ ~~ ~; m _ .- - .. . - - . .-- 1, AM_5 . . _ . . . _ _
.Y j
u : _
-3m L } } e g ;, Ad g,d""#
_ .C;_ l
;- $"f5 'r QC INSPECTORS
- 1) How long have you been an employee.at Wm. H. Zimmer Station?
- 2) Have you seen anyone who appeared to be drinking, drunk or ucing drugs on j -
the site? Also, do you know of any cases in which laborers were hired who I were prone to violence? If so, de. scribe the acts of violenae. j (Applegate Allegation #14)
- 3) Have you ever been intimidated for critizing or complaining about QA 'prac-j tices? If so, by whom? What were the specifics about the concern and the j intimidation?
! (Applegate Allegation #17) f 4) Have you ever been intimidated by fear of the utility (CGGE) and/or industry 1 wide reprisals for complaining about QA practices? -
(Applegate Allegation #17)
- 6) A tp. h +a : ' nae og a./gt, ec,t a.u r i .
f c, p(1 yo u6 e itWIM ^'N hw Q dl & n i
& 4 J+7 &
7* yy"**L , M- ~ g, ()DC'S . A vom M/W} 1, {bov 26 od StTB -
~
i to, lYA0 *O3 , as & l , wp - P jZ hlN ' " ' '
~
~
g-1 l3, da- lr v 1/
~
bP N90i9)llH9*/ j,h'- p p qwk-l I C- h"Y
/Yo M x&fNIk&)f][9VV hk[N/h - .
a4 *
- - - ~-
i l 1 e l l t l : . t i :
- _ _J. __.
}i y
i g j - I
.I . Iet - -
g
- -r !;
i i f_:g : l I, ' g l-
'l..j s g - . .
; { ,
1 , g, g __ .t _
= _i _. _ ,
g { j . t i - j:.- I -- at 8, l g
- I 8 i
l '
' 1-l
\ t _1
=
4 i . : : - ! t : I :. ! .! l
- l . .
1 . I ( ! _ s: : l i
]:. l -
a /
- l. :l. . : :- [ .
a = f l l' 2 .- __. 1 a r h . .
! = _ : ! ._ w .
1 :i i.
. .g is=
=
- 2. . -
I - 1.
' ,. ay I -II 5 ; _ __p g i .l sie:. :.11:31 I : 4
- i. :. .4 l
':. =
eg ga i n-_ 11 a
!. i. j
- i. -s --
i, .... j1 , , 2 -> _!.I .
. __ s_ _- _3. .__
g --
- y ~- i s i s .. .
1i i 3 i l
..e
_l i :: i I ll.!.!. [. s i : d. . hi y I :
-7' .
- s I
y rJ= t,3 :3E 1 I :._ I .sillt r-- ..... a i
, s,'3 _*_ _, _ . ,, ,
n i ii n j :. i ?. .[. ... f, - s i. .____ i . ...lit. .i.
- g. _! ! _ _
_ ' as_
*s = _zzer
- i . :
a . e g : . i : :
. i . 3
. i.
ht
.- *4
. .i i
. .si i 1 15 - l .i l -
y il - l .. . a : J w a ;d , , 8
- J. --. - " - ,
Il : a 9 p# - -- - - - - --
e6
, Av1_1/r [a~ Aisu l-304 $5. P. Nortaan/Ld. Piping 290 55 /
M d 6. D. j Itang/Insp. 290 562 l
- uset.cTIOu/STHucTuut 2-250 ,#5 7. E.L. Wood /Insp.
1-132 64.D.Lonovan/Ldj .j 383 E l _ ,, J Qj,5N sh8.~J. Hulkey/Insp. 290 57 e i 241 58 / ' JM g,97
- 65. R. Wrigt)t/Inspf . 3U1 331 s.42
- a. ', g ,,
p~2 264)
- 59. P. Brown /Insp. 241 59 t/
66.W.Ballmer/Inspj 60. E. Mitchell/Insp. 241 60 /
' M 67. J. Howatt/Insp.
j 3 41 -1 47.66 20-256 61. J. Cregor/ Clerk '290s 241 61 N221W '!.L i a: .
- 62. 62
$Q6jj (dl.
- 69. S..parger/Insp T. l'.dlJn.'llap/. 3:14 eri 63. 63 . .
2n)Q 70. J. Tannsr/Insp. 3al l J, . , QA INSPECT 10p/Li1C%1 CAL g/f y;/, i
,{
g,"/fd 71. C. Oumtord/Insg. 331 71,, g_, ,1-315g9 3/Kl% urges s/1d. g, .t si - 2 :3 ee__
,@- 7h f.. Smith /Insp. 301 7 J, e_, ' 2-189 3.'E g- Jul 7 3, , , , 2-205
\d4./ .B Hirtman/Insp. i n.
- 73. B. it.aryrave/Inyp. 1 95. J. Heimgold/Insp.
1 - 74. J. H:lls/Ir.spj 3s3 M_ 2-192 96. C 47/v. Cherry
- 3. i. 's.._,
k2,7g 75. S. McCoy/In=p. j 343 13 1 2-24S . nishop//Insp. clerk 3 .' i. w ! , ,, JrN al 76. W.. Kitchen /Insp. Ju4 7n . 2-240" V90. W u ke/Insp 3/6 >n
- 77. H. White /Insp.d '
Ov/l ( v'/lhl./ ' } 2-247 %) li ) (r--" M p-[ L' 2-261 78. C. Smith /Insp 364 7e , e, 2-277 79. J. Ruiz/Insp. llu )t*)s] QA INSPE TIOt3 HECitAllICAL 83.D. Painter /Ldd gj p/ "/ / // t/ *' JI ' j i 20-232 80. S. Asbury/ Clerk 3,13 _._
- 84. L. Hendley/Insp.j 308 ff 1_
- 81. al 2-256 3C.0 s i_
4
- 82. i. . 85.
- 3 Joel t:5
@ 86. P. Wiabish/Insp.T 30tt tu .
2 20-257 87. A. Lance / Clerk 3On :: 3_
- 08. e u,_
- 89. t:3 _ _
- 90. w e , _ ,,
- 91. 1s t
- 92. 4 '> .i ,
V n 9 e
., f l
_..._._,,e - r -- -
.- 7-1 t
(
,. ( .
I
-l j did not get clogged was a waste of manpower and that duct tape should be placed 1
over the drains. The tape was applied to the drains, and in my opinion some of the men working on the concrete finishing in the area poured excess concrete down the drains, rather than carry it all the way up the stairs to dispose of it properly. This conrete clogged the drains and later it had'to be removed I
, still don't know if Kaiser ever cleared those drains. Im my opinion the i
i I finishers intentionally poured the concrete down the drains since the duct tape would have prevented the concrete from entering the drains. There also was a problem in the control of weld rod on site. Frequenty I have ! i observed both uncontrolled weld rod in the plant, and weld rod ovens not being plugged in or kept at the proper temperatures. Also for a two month period in 1979 there was no one assigned to the weld rod issue shack on site. Weld rod for the night shift was merely left out unattended with a weld rod issue slip ! available for any one to pick up and sign Also the KE-1 weld control forms ere not being properly be maintained. QC inspectors were filling out these forms from their desk and not actually vertifying the information put on the forms by performing the required field inspections and vertification of the I
; data they entered on the form. This has led to problems with the in process
, , {
inspection documentation, KE-1 forms do not properly show the data for welds fabricated by Kaiser on site. ) t Another problem that I identified on site was that frequ'ently Argon gas was leaking from hoses in the suppression pool area and the Argon gas was settling in low levels of the suppression pool. The gas hoses were being crimped with wire rather rather than being turned off at the valve which was located one or b
{' { I two floors up from where the hose was located. Of course the crimping did not keep small quantities of the Argon gas escaping from the hoses, and this gas 4 settling in low lying areas of the plant. This was a hazard to someone if they entered a room and Argon gas was in the room. I brought this matter to the FC/ 1 attention of the GGAE Safety Man on site, who was not aware that Argon gas a i in low lining areas presented a hazard to workers. 1 i { Another records problem at the site was that Engineering Design for pipe hangers were drawn up after the hangers had been installed. The construc-j tion personnal was using drawings defined as " construction aids" which were i i
, instructions on how to install the hangers in the plant. If construction
! moved a hanger, or a pipe line, or a pipe support, they would draw the new 4
i location where they moved it to on the " construction aid" this data was later transposed onto the formal drawings. This was designing the pipe hanger system after the fact, rather than designing it prior to installation as it should of been. In my opinion Sargent and Lundy should have been on site to insure the drawings and fabrication of the hanger system was properly done however, they were not on site and this led to a situation where pipe support hangers where 1 installed and the drawings were drawn after the installation. These design J j problems and the control of KE-1 weld control forms that I mentioned earlier f I r should be characterized as records problems but not as any attempt to " coverup" any defective welds or designs at the plant. The way I see it, the design and records problems were cases of lost documentation, or improper documentation which occurs frequently on any construction project. I have no knowledge of { any CG&E or Kaiser Construction personnel engaging in any systamatic coverup activities to deceive the NRC or other inspection groups at the Zimmer site. hp
- . ~ - - - - . - , , . , -
e 0 h yQ w 2 a
,,w , J ,n a,
o gw i
& u i
ak . 'd f 0
.++ e em=* e . * * * .* e - ee ,ee e se . , e e e e G
s j e . i
.e .e_. -
e--eemone - amen en- e e e e-in e e 4 6 * $$h - =e o e- **4 ee $m egne ee n Maweeme m96- eehae eM 6 m h+6m M - e ae g ee > m e em mee se M e e l
- - - .-= . -. _
*w h
,w d n, ez 4Ayr - LA,-4 m gn gu m bii/dL .
N f i ~ 6f4'k
+dAa aoE p;&rhos<
u6o46B6:ho6f>4~- opfb ay _
>xx 78 g;l ,,
s az,,,
, f---
4/gy$ -
, s,, -
C) #A' W W/~ El . _ .
"'Off;$a _
- _bs 4 pA ma.4%
~ -D s .
piWff -
//SMS-- /Lchr(if4ML
^
^
l-
- Y %/ ;
l
J. da de .n.aes m- .-iJ m.a. .+ 4 J ,446 .A .-# f 4. A ,4 0 4A4 44 d e SW -a e s e. . g = .a 9 e g% t
. \
G t 4 i .
%) .
e 1 1 4 t
,e .. . . - . ..-.. . . . . .
'- J l J, - -
l .
.. .,e/ .
. e J lI d's f , o.- o' y
'e
- y % ..
.._. . - . - . . . . . . . - . . . . p .. ,
d l f I . . ._ __. _ _ . . _ . . . .. .. . . .. . s
.am. .es .e e = . = . e s
h
~
. . N .
i I , 5 I
.. .4e..- g ..
.. 8.
a e e .,eee.e- e
+ ...,
?
i
-. . . . . . .. . .. . . a... ! O -
t e i . 1.' Oo, \m . G. N . em .a e ei .M.. a. .e a k
..M6 * *+*-
- e === . . e e4+..w 1
e
I~
.K"ENG/NEERS A/SER g. --
- - -e-
- .l. L:
Wm. H. ZIMMER NUCi. EAR POWER STATION - UNIT #1 i: w ,. ,
. .u..,. ..
l RADIOGRAPHIC REPORT.): , ^ '
*'.,: . wn: >=
.Mx. '. < ,. .
. I.
i REF: KE-l No: 7 .7 . . ..w.: :q.fi b;;..' .
. WELD NO. #*
r
...., ..st'M., .:: t, ,
. c-- l WRD No.
B
" . e[< ' . ' ' :t. ' f.
, .Uf;'M,!g,. - . . -
gl-i REPAIR NO. DESCRIPTION: - "' N ' '~ *
. 3 LINE NO. " "
,.s . . ..w.., s
~ . -
'27 -
ACCEPTANCE CN__p>M~-
, SPECIFICATION:_ .
MATERIAL: 2 IPE SIZE: WALL THICKNESS: '# -
~.u .- ,
WELD PROCESS: SMA _ %.j " ~- GTAW .s MIG ^s/:.-
".9. u. '
>: ' o .. ;e, .. ... r/'"
' , JOINT DESIGN:, BACKING. R. l.NG N' ' ~"Y. . . '. . . INSERT OPEN .,
, ~
, SOURCE: ISOTOPE: -'E -
CURIESNg. 3 E' " , KVP/MA: ~/- PHYSICAL SIZE: ' ' - I
'.,... n:. -
, EllPTlg g *.a EXPOSURE TECHNIQUE: SINGLE WALL. .. W . , yb. a** v~u*. DOUBLE WALL ./ ..
* .yr ..:r*...**.. p. t *,
- f. ,
"?W ,. ...
~
# 'SFDP #$M"g. . FILM /0BJECT INCHES: * ~'- < '
EX'POSURE TilhE..: - < . . . . . *. ~..'.+
<, GUl q . .. .k .. .
PENETRAME E):
~ ~
I. YPE/SI.Z..h Lg'" .. .. . . .. . ~. f ._- ' W. f M TE .'.
. RI AL' "L ,
PLACEME{ 4-MARKER /NO BELT g' -
$HIMS:i[ R . '.E M .W. - .~*~. htCKNESS - 4
. .p i ..m . ,e ETYP .n'E #9"4'"" :---.. SIZE ~3 * # 7 LOA 0 M ' -
FILIP. BR.kN..d' '. .M ., .y.' be. . .j ;, .. . ca;.g.
.....e--
..c. g 3.i o 5 Jw_ h,w/ > . .
c) * ^ ~ ~' " g.?'uA,.
, 4. .
BACK w.r s BACKING SCREENS: FRONT.^ $*;
.FS- #4 ' /-
# ph.WWS"'A*i~p% O' w- ~i DOUBLE l . e e ;' .Y.??:: 1.1 '.?
~
r.** <- k'w<.; t. c.:: . :.2
- ~- -
DENSIT%{ .'c.U y .".f
...s. SIN.G LE.<r. .*. * .".'. ,..
+ } VIEWI.N G.%.4.n;r. .: M- m. ..= ,.' .< v,.* .g. Q, 6.,Jy*c f .J.e..)q. '+-. .
.*.4
,w vg.
. . . . -, % 4L e -
- 4. .r.w, .m..
- .e-c- . .y . 4 - "o RT D'i ATE . eU'[- E,*r " . . c t
REMARKS.q. $EE REV.E.R.S.E S.IDE.).<w.G. p&. e. . : .3.,.
4 ~- =
774 Nw wu 't-- *c.e~d .- -e.#.es:.et.*.r-:-*
-* u* g..e,.se's:*- .Mt-sw. "w-wc- - :
,u .: >. . .
g.' ' y ,, = - ~ ~ * * * - ' . . - - . ..
, s. . ,
' ... . Y' . O +, . . *..vf..W li :a*-** .'*' j1 ' > ., * ;eu w e. . , ' .* ., G.
is . M.y.]* i
=9%m
- y. iu Wh*ntbil;&. .%..
w%.w ;.r.Wm ,.-;A' .deYf. . .. ....
- o. h M
~.,,a.v.d. :
. r.t -~ . v... :r.'.h.
.u-?
.5*.
, a ,.. . ;. :
. ~ - .. .
i
. . ~ .,. . - . . .
..,w.
t.'.)l p;.Qt.l,.hg.Q: -.;. ::
, m,wk~' j,a&;-:
. m..s .s a a e' r .- - . .
, . , .. n. . .
4.,,w = sy &y .
~j.
p '.. ,W:g^ .
.,: .[ - i ,'. .
. O -
Yt .A' tt G 9 $ '"I ..
...w ,,
..v+- a y; v.v. .. **..m.n
.~ a y. ,v,'~ s.e w :- *: r.v . :~t cv y . %,. G ~: + :.ss :v?r,%.%...+.*h 2kv. 4. W .* 4.:*-
~@~
~.,vt...+o r.s,. m* ;. m.n o.
. _.y2e..:5. v 5 g...,
&. . c/
.s ,~.:4.
..u.>
. . .s.-
;.n.,
..a t .:)~
. ..n..s
- a . > . - .-
. M. ; . + . p, .M
.s
. . . a:
.*. ..a.
t:: '.,<.;...m,.. s ,- u,- s.- e., s r. W,,. '
- a s.w.. . .n. ,n. . . ,1 v.w .. i ;i %..-
- p. . .
*+,
.6.;.
.y~ ,.7/ n...d M*' ', . + -4t 5 : ..' ?'*"
.>,. w. c. .',m.~ .. w.
.'. G.
.. c. w. a. e. s + 9. . . i.'A.'.2. Te .F. :.'I. q. .W.'D. . W
, s . .,. s%. .. r... t.n. L . ._a,.<
n T. - C.
.- s .,?.,1,.
w w;
- p. .s. . .n .. -
. g.:: .
- 1. .
< .,e.. ..~ . - - .s.s ..y- .,.w. . . w . .
e.. . .. ., , .
. \ - l i..:*.% ::;,. b;;. : 4 ': - 'L .[y ht;\ )? , ' .,
l . , N h -. 'i,k rs:- QF . ;. : .
- y g * % *: x q /., - .: 3
;; .%: --J' r- -
/ < *
. ~* -e.u
,r '& -.- ::n . - -~ :n. n.
* . . : :. . . . .r... . - ,
.r:.. :.
u ... .. .
- n. . - -. .g .
-- . ~
rad s. : m. .,:,,.;.
.g,f- .s
~ ..
4.- ;,'av t,&S " . ' . 'M;:; x,s% '.e?'L'
.%..*J < .,g*6 h.c ";,'h.*. , i; .C:n is. '*';'- .a x .t ? .%.;.'
l
- 1 n 9 w(? 9 i. d: % .' n .. .
3 wa. +
;.: t.:,.-
..~. w. .,.
..: .m ...
.q.s c ::y.
- n. - :. w:, .-.: - . ..u.
= . - ,.,g... . m. .,-
1.- c. n.:%. g.' . ,; '. w . mg R. .r.e...a.. e.s . .,, .g%. .. -.~.e.
~ . .c.=. :.: .c s ;. .
'"*Fi<in[o c, t .wwQ,. .@,fe%'i h. ;
N W ***
^% 0.. %.-16 * . ' " M. " /" -T " ' -, ' ' ' . .
- , *' .L A + -W"-'*"*+''"-
g ." .
! . . . . . ~ .. sc f,W fik M Wi %'G* h i.E J' 7*.. ~.*? V'.L W..' Tie .%. :WN % ?.MM.:$ A ;'I . i :... r- i W r%. a.x. h. .'$' .'.i; '.t W' - & N. ?.?.
', ilQ'.S*h.
. . . : s.- .P...O.
. .P.% -u.,b :.0,*hr i
v.<
$ ..w
,$'; ,lN $?, f .& .N. E.'OS2.-$& W. *N
.'.*.?
'.b...'.
v
. ~.. g' xos.i.
u .:.
#* :.~
r, ., . . v. .... ..~ . a. . :4. e-y .. v. :iv. .- Q.ss 7 7,..,. *r[ '.y n My h. -f. h i '. 7 ~- *...e
- 15. ..=i#..x?.;i'.f.a . ,.-*{'s,.1
;..*.:, , . , " . . ' - #5 :& i' icy %';,1..T l-Cef %
- m. .w,. . < . . . . . . <: . .. w . .v ,s .f:n- ,e
[
. . . m, .. .
* '%.?. l.
,.- ., R+-
. . .w 'lJ c:.. q ; ;;
. ,.,, . g.n.a.z.
...: ..<. ,.:2., ,
- ,.mv
.z <:
4 :.4: . "-W vO . . s. , - ..o. n-p .
- e. ov i
'O s
r. T. 9 4.. .l $:g . :>
~
',R.... v.C .
s..
'{
Q
.s. . . .
.... C. . ., .. : , ,. . -
,* . ~. -
5.......3*,....
,.. l ..
- . M ,. . . .,. . .... .g . .e. .-
....y n. .
J p . . . . s r u-e r c .. my 8 9 _ MTL Approval Dato KEl Approval Date Authorizec insp Rev. eve Date 4 M h -aos .. . . . - - . - _ . . . . . _ _ _
\ . . s .
~YA/SER
- ENGINEERS.
"::N- .
Wm. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION - UNIT #1 4,
P;,7.. .n.- g.. .. 4 RADIOGRAPHIC REPORT
! . ......v,... . .
ggy*. gg.g _n,* , . ~ ~ n -a ..
, ~s -
, . ~ ,
- gg[g Ng. >' g.
n n. .- . . ny m)Qs .**W**%.. g;;,.
....- :y.
Y..- v-
. s n M*..=. . 3. , -pu*1.tr.,,d: ..-(g ;m -, ,. q eREPAIR .msNO.t. e. ,.
WRD No. - l.
- . . ... .ess.dM. N'^p*.w."i .,(....
> a J: . . . ' *% '
f,' DESCRIPTION: M.i ~4A' - LINE NO. / d* M .** F ML -6 ;
,. ;... o c . y I / CW ~
'^~~ ~~~
i SPECIFICATION: ACCEPTANCE CLASS: h f. MATERIAL: M PIPE SIZE: WALL THICKNESS: , . WELD PROCESS': SMA O GTA5 Y mig I JOINT DESIGN: BAC' KING RIND "nb. 'M" s%u v >.w. ~ INSERT N OPEN #.',; SOURCE: SOTO'PE:'NE 1'
'C'h IEh: '
KVP/MA: T., PHYSI' CAL SIZE: / .i
^w. - s .. m . .a.q)in . ..
w :- . EXPOSURE TECHNIQUE: SINGLE WAlfi - /49$w#''''S ELIPTICAL .N. 4 m .; . . ..: . ; cA. .,:;., .y.% , , ; . ft- + DOUBLE WALL , ,g', .: 1 EXPOSURE TIME: 3." Co ' . 'r- l .SFD: 1.S 'T. ' ~ t ' '- FILM /0BJECT INCHES: C. s s- e. < 9' U-
- 7. . .- a . ..- .
l . P . .c d-~ d: w**> w -N MATERIAL'" b M PLACEMENT *
~ T .. ENETR AMETE R: TYPE / SIZEy.
. .- vs. e. 1**t %;.y. .=a.1 4. y *
".o r.<.e sm2'.. aw*.w r ; .~ n- c v.=. -*,s v . '*. C = f s.r -
.-f'%**-%s .m.e
. 4. .. .. w. ^ m.6"C' vA MARKER /NO BELT .v2 ,o
+
SHIMS.: MATERIAL:
*y. h~~-- THICKNESS
~.-
.u.w; ,
M L'OAD'ddA M . FILM: .,'.m..~N ilR'A's ND aD W W*d M..u ,.,.,.:.M.w.W~ 'M'-TYPE ~ SIZE 4h8 Y
,:. .:. . v..q . .u .w . g . u. s . . .
CW e.< :BACIP '".h 3.v W,:.~. ,." C" ' ' BACKING'g,T?'* 'W SCREENSTIF'RONT"'W I@,#Y fMnr,s.% #
.4. P '
wwg.u.w n ~ . \
! VIEWING SINGLEM; mbw c,v.m'*M'#;mm.n.~ '
4.130UBLE- ~ / s.m**. M .y.. -..:w.:.. a.c: :.w.a .M'M D'n DENSITYMM -".../ . 4 ".
~
.wwn(::lmii-r+.tw.+:;,y? ?z y'#M-'M*Mg.w;:. .%%; 73:g r. . nW'N. .e.e- R. T. DATE 'I /. '
; 3.~.,.p C..s e. v .th. 2.m7.'., f .h.yg
-r. ghw::g.pt W ? :!d;, --
,.. RE!'iARKS: SEE R.E M -
. ;.~. -M Nti:'W., cyp @.VER.SE SIDE)n."%'i&J &' 9G-%g>.2.y: %;n, n& .?"--*. .q ~.e-a c *
/ M %. fVL3s % . %~t h .****t.:c 3 l
*4
. ....y J .* * *s *f;ke,q. .g; . ;,r4*39: * *. ... :9l ' -eg s w sf.e.
.y = .r'.rs' p }. e W.
=..
.V
.:.4 e..4'- , t' * * -Ay..* $,v
.e
.
- P ".
. . .. .. '.-~.:-
$r .',* * , x,. - p
- d.
-4,~C A. :'q.m . ~'g# *. .
. . yg . ~* *Jn ,,.
q-' s.g)T .
.+m.[.Vs yr 9.q
;{,;*. . o
. ~--. - ;
.'.%y.. .r% .f q*. . . . . ' u.:. 4.
l ,.
.c- ..c,.
.. . *M .S.= .e:r ..v. s Q..r..v,Aw q .. n ,.8' -
.9 .hs .2
.; v si .fe .m g c;- ,
. :.~ . . - - . .m a.o*~p _ . g .,:.-W
.e
*'.;to, + .dr
.; j m ;e ;y.. o?.p:>. .- m ., r,.K. 4 .,, c. . . M,. :-.:.% . ;. -
p) . .. - -
+ 4,eow+p. . sr . mo e , p &. 2...+ e.
y.t4., ,.;p . * *:gw
< 4, .g .
.,n c...... . ..a. u
$f,.
55.]j~,N. 2,. c . FILM
- DENT,y;{.k..g g,
?,QlEW T fe
.r,.'4 />'et ..+,y. tS;fS,f .
., g 8 [f.gi +g.- .
*}'
[
. . ...N
- p. .,- e.
. */y,, .,, ,}p,EMgKS, ,-3{, ,
. -vam.@.- #. ..- s
-as.
-%. W
.'.>t i Q m.D W M i..9 4G --
!g,..,.n. .%i y.s.'.. & *,*d -%.7. J. 3 QC.4:.W W. % .
- b. .,e.- .%*: t *%' ts y. e.
- g. N f*. .
.W.,c. ~.$ 9. - ::g,. ;., &./- .f.. H: ,... ,,,
...- .I .. J,. a- ..' g.. p.
9.~.;r w.sW"A n c .s . '.-i&.3
.e <
L.*
..o . .%... .,, .N....eg ."
.:i.
- h. . . o.wt..T.tM.
y 22 . 9..v s w.,4;.- : :. :yV. . n.M 3.* uv 1. .- ' 4. 2 .s, n 4.. e .o* + ca.'. w.
+*@ ~
s-*~-<' w .t w :4p-- w
. .y .opa+w , . . . sf.we- <..' ..= .. 14
+
)J ...*o
- . . .. e.., . . , . . .. + . .. :V e M M A ik,.
. .ms.e.
. . , - ~ , . .
.y ...... sr m
.. v.
.N., < ..g
, . f. - v. L.. . m e. ps fm . M,.u .
- s. .7;,/-f.
2 g;r ., *e : % N. -%,; s"n v.,, -e.- +
. {> %. . , .,: sn*.~..
.. 4./1
. 'n-
.3.- t*
. i. ' *a .
F x
*-s. -
'* h * -*
= - o
. ,./e. ,;,,3. w, e.: .c.
.y .y. - 7.y..
,,.. .: ... ms. -
... pt,- -*:.r . ~;
.i.. .= * :
y u s: . M, .- e 4. 2 W.*; *.'r >o.o
,7 j .; .. :s .., y . , . . ,
7ls r- ah, gggq_y A o, ,. , .
..- f( %
. .; .. m ,~. s ., m *i
- y. <y;. a.. *-,;g.
r m ve <% w r. g s y.~.. m k.% fr.t :".',. w. Y W. .s 4*ertre-i\ a..: .- . i4' /,7 = :u
.ew b-w'o$cp y w/ ;,:......... .
- e~. ??. *A*W
- y,h ..,.
- p. *d*~V}%>. Web gv;)M A.s k.- : .i.W . :x W:.$s y 44 (M; k'? 'h h? c; ..Y 7./*' '..G ?.*$. %.' '
%'t t','D%. a c.a d.4. . 'AT:4.*- T. c-
&. .~%:;r. c
- .:.#w
.s *;. ;. :. , .s r
; W: .- m x: w .*
5-v .~t.n . q. . om -a: ; 2. - 3::a q yV m .N
.:. : ' W.-
" , \C
-ut- = *v- y" "a .".~n > r :~x.n; - : n. :.;e. e.y, 3
.r. .. > <k .t. -
.?' m. e.~u 3' i.< ;.n. . 4 g.e, yerr.'- '. 9:y,g.
.'t. %: .. .a.n.4:.,.~pr..am,e*gg% e.-
A *- .7
'e. r,g.i :.,o.
',. : n,Qs. n9. . .o -
.p. .: v. , .i.~~ . .w.ru .e
'v ~.rp.. s.i ka ,
. ,. . . . .e~ W'. r ... 9 %
t
. . ;. e,. . .- 3 v . .x --
i,p 'at,ps s%;: .. pf - h& X. .s,.@ .%. %.4 *; y .a.. . - ~. . k1 :?. ' y.- iC ; J, s.t n
.: + , i..~.ge M. ..)*:,M. 7, . . . ':...o %.?i.
Vs Q0- .C.r.k.d.rr . .. +* .:'.~r,.: y y 7.g .,, y,- W g ] %(;9. m ec cr, g&.< y .O
. ., . r. 3 .c e. A a v p,.
- 8;*.*tf.r,; .;@., f,p./f_t,t ;;. vt: AL ga ' ,. y 1*j' y :g p,y E .- 8.r-sw y,pW+ .
r* 3.s;r m O 2
...N.. <- *V'H..,.E.'.5 w T..W ' *W(5. -W.=V6 *m .* p.* 'W: I"*Y v a r. aw. %.
W
.A **' Y
- N. ;w y'
.';* o 5.N. g'Y '. W,'. '.-? S
- s. H s d .1 .O
. - - T'm m t-. '*. *< p.'r%*h p*W. ~"- are r:. :.r .~ ay 3 : M, .JGf- ,r .ca W** %,
pgi . v.. - c. . . n. . p:, 33,. :<~ @.
. a -
~ n .* Q ..o ~;r .=e ;*.r,
. y ,
I n -) y.%Q l% s,;, .v. ,s pg *p .- ,f' . }g ; r' . l e* ,- q. g
. .. s .,..
N. . .y
,i.. *.3
*: .g. . . s. ,_.
-.t .r* n y.
- k., .aw .'. ; *
.s.
Ls l .. c et, ..e .. > t..: .
.f. -j u.;V *4
.s** .%.w. J:'.'.z ar ?.s.3. .;os i,,.. ' . s i. - 3 M, g . . ; jr. .. e ..
..$ ,'ip ..e .
;... , g
- s. e. .& '}
M
- r. L. .e. . w. M ;.l dea . e.i;. .. ~:ve. '. -.
i')%. . I. f.
.w..'
t .,k.' . . ,
. Z. ./% .a
;~s, . : .' . ,. .s_.J
[ . \ f % m l u nw
;6 f.ITL Approval Date KEl Approvat Cate Authorsted Insp. Rev ew Date 1
ijE / *
,. l' 1
- e
. . , , , , , - - -----------,y, ..-+y --- -: ,
. . - ._ . m ._
I l #/GISE/7 v.i;..Wm. H.lZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION - UNIT #1 , ENGINEERS ., r j L..j r . . . r.:W. . RADIOGRAPHIC REPORT - .
.y.
'~~w n , ,. , .. s.,
REF: KE.1 No. ., . .7 P.~." n ,. WELD NO. V s.u m m..:.
' :v:. .q.. n} . . .. <
,. .c p;. n.. '--
REPAIR NO.cA"..
- " ~".g; . ~
WR0No. ' - -
.i DESCRIPTION: . A. LINE NO. ' ! *- /- ~NO SPECIFICATION: / ACCEPTANCE CLASS: -
M' MATERIAL: - 1IPE SIZE: !O ' WALL THICKNESS- ."
- - , b','7 .
WELD PROCESS: S GTAW Mr MIG 'MM 4 ... u. . . L pr//js.' , .1 JO. I.N.T.,.D. ESIGN: BA.CK. ING RI
. A'.-f J-@. .. -
'. INSERT
' s.v ' . ' .s. ^ " OPEN v
.y...... . , ,
30'0RCEi ISOTOPE:9#I..NGA7 ' KVP/M D CURIES [Yh. . SIZE: .E T,5 / '. ./ A: 8..'." . PHYSICAL - EX 0 URE TECHNIQ1 E: SINGL,E WALK. .
. . . q.
7* y D0'UBLE WALL '<t ELb'Tl #M'- hX OSbHETIME: M. . . . .E . ..SFD M D 'p.,g...5EFILM/DBJECT l.NCHES:
- 0? 'N. y . . ,g,.' 6/-M .
IE hTh,AMET.ER: Pb!Zb'Y FERIII. M# ' PLACEEIEN[ IU'U N 'I S . y : y..; ,.. .. . : x w.r . w,, ls;, m. c
.' .-:w.J"~ e 'b.
- - THICKNESS . : . . .. w e.MARKER -. ;,.. m./NO .. n.n m"v.q,,. m " rp,'a.1-2
- " ' - s.: ...
SHlf.tS: MATERIAL:*'y~.s. / ..
- ' 9,/ BELTN- -
h*[B' # ~~W Ph $ NSIZE ' ' i.0Ah ShM M b l- . n w '. n .- y an.w . r , :..*;64wu
" N N "BACK*%ja..a. M
~ \ % 2: - ~-i J a- W "'4y,7 Q'l M ,r.:
y -'*W.?* .r M . 5CNEENS:'IRONT" h @ 8"m~"" "i ' BACKING ~n - .'. hghg gh NdMNE$b OUBL 5 - E I b* bbNN b I .:
,.. e <
- a. -m. . -* -gr.a. p. . .v mv.., x^ . s.%vf pif.4. m. eu:
- s.w.,v.
ww * -
.w .n. . ~,.7c ..
, sr,..m.?~ - -
m . r N
' x, u. ., . .w. *.DATE W;ra.,.p.RT r . .W m WQ.W J,f/?f[. g .M, .,,, %, - -
,, m .
~.
' ~.' "d w. s . .REf.tARKS:
. %v' 4 5%MHMC%i (SEE REVERSE SIDEP,,$,n*A? X I4%rss:W.W c' E W. .:v:.O.W+NME ~W-M*MWW2~T*t~ CW C,.
- e.w, .4.. .g .w .u v: .,, .s w.g.w. r- ? ik v ps M ,- %f.
.m n. ,A %. y a.z ,.. e r. r -
.:r, ;. .g. a..w . eq. -*m & .w ..Q
. . c ,37 . ..;::. .*17
- #.. + . ts -~' ,. n,y v .* . , - m. #... g. >c
%*.*t *; ..*r%. m w %. . w.,~% .f .v: % '
- 1A w.
.t.... J
-' %.s'. f';%5 y :..~ . . .r
- e. ,
he M.WW 4; * ,y.M,,. un '. W O- 8. . *" YWiwa Nf>" W... ..w M 4,t %.% ,..: 2;p,y.3. 9.s.r'. / E+y. . . ;f4 ' .W-M :, .' . th r s
.o p .: y= m,c ' .re %n e+.m-m.w .y. a;h@w.v.m-f.4, p$w; t,s- .s
~# .
- 4. x0 x.- g,q -f .6.,;+g ' > w ,sy w* ~..- Mv6.M .
,3 g/g. g. g g 3: -ww r. r.
v. g n .*..5INDENT,?.p].Q FILM"
,e % .a w j{ 3Ey ' Y N. m.
. f. 'y
,N. .. ..
( ,
.-t . Ws e
m. C, s. C,
.s f. g;$~ . ..-..:uA ww ~ .
c(r..z.f Ig* m . ",
.+
.. - .p .r., vr ~~
4 . '
.q~ c. ,-,
c.a
+x m.:.
., ..w .,s.,, . .;-
. 9;-c. ,y
>-.m..
sr &. .- p.o. , s p:- . . . . '. ~ . . M. .
. nas.7
..-, .. ,~ *
%.. . .r' r.:e: .-54.t.,r 2
.: e
;~
.m 4fesn. :uk.
- r .e~m.s.Mu 4. ;r..u.
;s. -sw.~
fn .t.:w h,n r e N. ;
- J . . , . . . . . 0.*'h . ,.,.#4.'.M v(,. ~e w..-N.
S,. . ' 4">U .e.E e*+ NE A * ,r 4 4- 1 M N D .,- 5: 0 4.' N
'7 *'. D $n.. dn .-.M' M~~*W *e$
- w. - n . .: .w . - = ~ r. m *a i.
u.-em y;p,. ...
. .~ -. < . . . m -u G
> . . . n.y N,s.m, .
u ~ <:.~ r.e 4 <c.a.w -n e. . e .:t . n u.M. u9s m g >e e. <qQ%~;
,. . .y%o.rn$"
.-- *a".n
D'sM.T/e }.V.h.PP/Mt
* *i' W / Y % %~ 7:~ *~ "
X . %Ee'e M tM ~~ W M '~' ' ' ' ' '
. .:. n =, &
. :..:.:..Tr.y~
4, m . .%. . ,.. .r y*>. f.; ;7 ~.".- r %.:, .s, ()~- w
. .s .
.!'.,y
- v. & .m -
% A. '.
v
1
*n. n W . . . .o.
..~c!
i. r
- s
*b &.
~:.
4-
. ' * *~ ..A t 'r: n.;- &
7,.T."~ a 5.'. A??.'.211 i~M W-;.:t
. . . ~..
1 7 ~* . P. ?-
.. rww.s.n.w s.-59. .
w.
- s. ,Q,. .:-g?.w ec ::W- .r2 .
- ~ -
.p.h %. .:n i.,gg- :n. ..x.. #.a . 6 G: 34,
.. w ..
w ::: w.r.: . c.-I.c m a Ann. &. 1 .s. .a @ ,
' u o e- > 8.e M ve '% .a.
xc g.: w% ,~= .* < .x
.v v r.
* ' ' ~ e *c. 1ha
.~wwn ,,.Wm,.V. p:%.n. -
ntn,-
'k*;: .m~ .7.4.%q.* m.e
- .; o 5 . . t .* ..
r,
- t.* :- . *-: . . ,o . :~R T* t 't.'? m .f.V % .itt ** *.R :4"- (' s Q
.t..* &~ **fj,h.a:y?:
~~
*:r.M.< s:p * .. sp.7 .K. [!S."'; * - .
- 5*:*t**% 'hi.'O?3
, .v=,, ..t . ..c.V*.-
- n. * '. a .y..
.. :n , c: --%, .*y.a ,w,.
. .rW. .to ; .- - . .Q .
g* :.- y.
%. . s
-.4 Q. .n'.swr%( g A' .p..19.v~..ffg?s?.%. . r i/.,.
- f. . "C..
* %.:.3 v
". =
o w g. M ."
. . .,9 o ma :- a ,,
w
..v .
. e- - ' ' ' . h. .t*, -
".'*t9.y==.e.. g3 *c-m
. s*#
- p. -v es e . ev. s
- ., .. ,.< .. - . ~ - p .* v*. s 'r . -m. .-,*
s r' . .l.f,. M' 4; W<,..*. . h **r;t. a .. A. * ?- l. a
.W~., N ;w? ,
e.
.n:: .%'L * *" aeo ~. rs:,sshv*?
G,.
. .f' s. 4 .* .; e r~
h~o =s .l. ,&,. %g'
. ;t._, s?*u.W. au %. .n d. c:p '.
e
%. ~ %'c~ . , . . -
!?:s;? .? .. .?.c.W:n..r.h......
? r+.n ,,: ?.~ .i *y n?- n.s *.:.. ,.n.*+ .
ec m: w
#s 'm t.W Wp' es -
M M
*" Y;*gy'
^..
y A Mc*u.*' tV.g%.4
~.
s un .w*m.* y ~; r
=*
]4w.'
...w
%" %'Yh,e* * *?*
vY.\*. }y$s
- r. .f. [. .yj' '&:TAQ
.Y
,r,, .q'W, ,. he h ,b
[.. r. ,. ,j.c .k .)p s *4%, . I
- h
.: . . =*~ %.w . o r.
* . ,h.b -hMe .
. p op % W.%. . a
.=
[f' l"" V n p . *s p .. (. P -
- p ?* };
F * @'*?'8'...' M .*d.?.7 .
** M 5 t:* . a& Ot' - - - ' ""*- #*
. Y.' "r**** D ' C =t 7:. *d * ***** .7 ** **
- yrA+**- 'g
** ~~
m , .~.: e i.;t. .
. ..,.,&. ~'.
4r s. ..* *- Y$s I-
. '. \f** !' N: :.5- . ..v r.W Y j~~%.6 Wii O.a,.l'. X Y
. ..=: ..-,.:...'d ~ ~.. '. .a s.. .r. @Q:. *W{..;. 41 '.5. s P: *>sy - * . rr. .-:r" . :;. .
- s. a#.M . '. . *u - * +$: *o -h 4.b ..h
*. 7 * * . .
4:.+!.j..
.% ="*K
. .s . .. *a W.e *'i . , D. * ' ' 1*? M d' 8- V L:s n '~ ' M %-
. . .~.r..m...
n.., ..
- r. .n.&*,C. ,te,s,
.. .o .o .** .o .' -
men u. .* ,- s..a, *u. .o so.d eo ._ \
. .. - - m
< e -
,. . e . ..- s., s e
- s. g n, . . , .w ,. y . ro ~
- r.
- m .>.n .nre ..w t.wo.a. :$
n .s ~
. .r..
m py. .a . .w .a , . g ,
. ~
gi e d< vn* p
'p V
1 I f g l V ~ }* 1
~~ ~ . _ . , -. -r- . ~ ~
( I - m.,
.w .e ,- ,, - ,.-----,--,.--m,,-nw- - - - - , - - - - - -e-- - - - - , , - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - , - . - - - - - - - - - . - ~ - - - , - . - - - . . - - e -v- -
s .
. f M:oq
# Q- UNITED STATES
*- ! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' 3 I REGION lli t
g
% /[ 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD GLEN ELLYN,lLLINOIS 60137 July 14, 1981 I
j MEMORANDUM FOR: J. G. Keppler l A. B. Davis J. F. Streeter R. F. Warnick J. F. Schapker F. A. Maura
, R. Janke M. Singh ,
P. A. Barrett J. B. McCarten FROM: J. E. Foster, Investigator
SUBJECT:
STATUS OF ZIMMER INVESTICATION REPORT, ASSIGNMENT OF TASKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS An overall report format, allegation format, and numbering scheme have been developed for the report. Applegate/G.A.P. allegations Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 have been edited and reorganized in-to the allegation format. Allegation 1 is attached as a clean draft example. I Attached is an outline of the report as proposed, including proposals i for subsections of the report. Those items marked with a dot either have not been prepared, or are in the earliest stages of production. When these items are drafted, additional editorial, organizing and typing will be required. Tables and exhibits will also need numbering when the final report is organized. In an effort to expedite production of the report, the following assign-ments of responsibility for the remaining subsections is proposed: l TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO LICENSEE Streeter, Keppler APPENDIX "A" Barrett REPORT COVER PAGE AND
SUMMARY
Foster REASON FOR INVESTIGATION Foster
SUMMARY
OF FACTS Warnick, Streeter, Keppler l PERSONNEL CONTACTED Janke l b 1 _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
i
\ '
g.
. \
Multiple Addressees 2 , July 14, 1981 i ' t 4 j SCOPE . Foster BACKCROUND McCarten, Foster
, QC ALLEGATIONS Schapker (No.s2)
/
, Maura (No. 3)
.f McCarten (No. 4)
{ OPEN ITEMS /0 PEN ISSUES -Barrett EXIT INTERV1BWS , Warnick MANAGEMENT MEETING N ' Warnick, Streeter t LICENSEE COMMITTMENTS/ CORRECTIVE ACTION s Warnick, Barrett s N t ATTACHMENT NUMBERING u Singh-TABLE OF CONTENTS
~
Singh N; I also reconnend the following: ' 4
- 1. That M. Singh return to RIII on' July 20th or 21st, 1981, and remain 1
through the weekend of the.25th (if agreeable).
- 2. That final draftp 'of the report be generated during a retreat to s
Nordic Hills during the week of July 27, 1981. Gd 3 5-J. E. Foster Investigator Attachments:
- 1. Draft Allegation Example
- 2. Report Outline t
s Y 0
) K
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np 5.3.1 Allegation s
. )' "A radioactive waste drain is clogged with concrete which carelessly was
')
! poured into the drain."
, ~
':1
-1 J
5.3.2 Background Information
}
j' Normal practice is to flush drains with water prior to plant operation to i confirm that the drains are clear of all restricting debris. The radwaste floor drains, which are nonsafety-related, will not handle any radioactive liquid until such material is generated following the start of plant operations. The terms radwaste drains and radioactive waste drains are synonymous terms for floor drains, which normally drain small amounts of radioactive water that can leak from such items as valve packings. 5.3.3 Investigation I i '\. 5.3.3.1 Interview of Individual A N. 8
'6s l
i On February 24, 1981, Individual A, who was previously interviewed by 4 representatives of GAP, was interviewed by NRC. Individual A stated i that, although concrete finishing work was under way in the radioactive s waste disposal area, he suggested to Kaiser construction personnel that a pipefitter be assigned to the concrete finishing crew to assure concrete , did not enter and clog the floor drains. However, they disagreed with r w. k D l=% \ g b 1.
, ....m . -
* ' DRAFT /np.
ZIhMER/000
', s t - . - .
this suggestion and instead directed-the' floor drains to l v covered with . j duct tape to prevent concrete from enteringland cloggiug; tie i sins. ' ' I Individual A stated that concrete did enter the' lines and cD ?ghd the~ '
, 'l . ,
radiation waste drains.
; , ~
.i t \ r 1 On April 22, 1981, Individual A provided a writte.n statement. attest.ing I ,
; to the preceding information; bewever, he requested the- statement not '
; be attached to this report.' /,
1 / l l 5.3.3.2 Interview of Individual B s_.. I Individual B stated that he worked as a pipefitter during'1976-1977, and worked with the drain flushing crew for the rad system. Individdal B' - stated that during this period, he observed floor ' drains in the syste:s .. that were clogged with contrete, which he and others unsuccessfully tried to remove. ' 5.3.3.3 Interview of Test Coordinator end Startup Engineer
, T.elephone interviews were conducted by the Senior Resident Inspector on ; February 12, 1981 with the Test Coordinator, who was responsible for the radwaste building drain flushing activities and on February 13, 1981 with I
the Startup Engineer, who was responsible for Drain System flushes. Both individuals indicated that some drains were found to be plugged with unspecified debris. In all of those cases, the drains were cleared and flow was verified.
-,.44 .~.&j..,
ZI!9fER/000 DRAFT /np
, 5.3.'3.4 Record Review and Onsite Observation
}
.t
.i The Senior Resident Inspector reviewed CG&E Flushing Procedure No. DR, ij Rev. O, for the Drain System approved on September 23, 1977. The purpose n .
d . of this procedure was stated as follows: "This document details the pro-A] cedure for cleaning the liquid radwaste floor drain and equipment drain j piping to the various plant sumps and drain tanks. The floor drain and ! E equipment drain piping shall'be flushed until they flow freely and all large particulate matter is removed." Y Appendices to the Flushing Procedure indicated that 152 of a total of I 169 of the potential radioactive waste drains related to the radwaste building floor drain tank, the floor drain sludge tank, the radwaste
- -- floor drain sump, the floor drain collector tank, and the chemical waste tank had been flushed and verified in accordance with the procedure.
The appendices indicated that the verifications had been made in 1979. The licensee stated that the flushing activities were continuing.
\
The Senior Resident Inspector made visual inspections of all of the accessible radwaste drain ports identified on Sargent & Lundy drawings A-533 Rev. F, A-534 Rev. F, and A-515 Rev. N. These drawings identified 1 the drains in the radwaste building (elevations 496 ft. , 527 ft. , 513 ft. , and 511 ft.) and in the auxiliary building (elevations 567 ft. 5 in., and 547 ft.). None of the observed drain ports were visibly plugged. The following floor drains were covered with tape at the time of the inspec-tion and were therefore not inspected: I _3
ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np
; a. Radwaste Building--elevation 527 ft.
(1) Drain Y-20 (2) Drain Y-17 I i
- b. Auxiliary Building--elevation 567 ft.
]
I j i (1) Drain L-26 - (2) Drain G-26 (elevation 562 ft.-5 1/4 in.) (3) Drain G-22 (4) Drain G-20 (5) Drain G/H-20 (elevation 562 ft.-6 3/4 in.) (6) Drain H-22 (elevation 562 ft.-7 5/8 in.) (7) Drain H/J-24 (8) Drin G/H-22 Neither the flushing records, the personnel interview, nor the Resident Inspector observations confirmed or denied that the drains had been clogged with concrete. These activities did confirm that the drains, which had
; been flushed, would allow flow on the dates of the verifications.
l 5.3.4 Findings l NRC interviews with site personnel indicated that some drains had been clogged with unspecified debris.
o ' 3 ZIMMER/000 DRAFT /np i ' j . i Flushing records generated in 1979 indicated that 152 out of a total of 169 of the potential radioactive waste drains, all of which are nonsafety-related, were cleared of all restricting debris. The 17 drains that remain to be flushed are identified in the same controlled flushing procedure as the 152 that have already been flushed. RIII will determine the status of the remaining 17 drains prior to plant operation (50-358/81 ). I 4 5.3.5 Items of Noncomplfance , No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. a I f e
.. .. h: R e<T ?: E u ?
9 ':RAI:EGTIAL I2PF.:2 TO LICEiSEE
}
- AFFDiDIX "A"
^
e REPORT COVI3 PAGE & SUICuRY 8 TA3LE OF CONTE 3TS s
- # REASON MR DIVESTIGATION I
l
- SU:2GRY OF FACTS lj
- DETAILS
* /. PERS0miEL CONTACTED
* .z. SCOPE I
- 3.BACKGRomm
' V QC ALLEGATIONS f APPLEGATE ALLEGATIONS
- g. ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED THROUGH SIE INTERVIEWS T DIDEPEIDEIT NRC DISPECTION FDIDDIGS
- f. OPEI ITEIIS/0PEI ISSUES
' S EXIT INTERVIEWS 8 da t'ANAGEin!T YZETDiG
- 8 LICEISEE CCICC'B4EITS/ CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM ATIACD4E!TS E0iIBITS ALLEGATION FOMIAT
/. ALLEGATION CLARIFYDiG DIFORKATION
.2. RACKGROMID(VHERE lECESSARY)
- 3. DNESTIGATION V. F r m D:G S f ITD;S OF NONCOIGLIANCE (VSERE Kmm) l DISPECTION FOPJMT l
. /. PIASON FOR DISPECTION I 2. D;SPECTOR, DAES OF DISPECTION J.RACI:GR0miD(YdERE1ECESSARY)
- 7. FDIDEiGS l f ITEG OF NONCO:GLIANCE (WHERE F0E;D)
OPE 7 ISSUES F0EMT l
/. ORIGDi 0F ISSUEffTE4
- 2. ACTIO!!S TO DAE ^
- 3. PLANNED ACTIONS
- 9. COMPLETION ESTDRE 9
... . v. s st
,3 DATE_/# ' I ; b - dTATION - UNIT 1 t r ' _
PIPING OA DOCUMENTATION CHECKLIS ESSENTIAL @ YES O NO T
. ft _
I h, ITEM flO.Nd 7'Ii _ - Subassembly Packages .'
, 1 _
b Spool No./.f#-h0RN/O -Ng
} 2 Sheet No. F y4/
Systen _ #pe;/de/ //eAs / /egorA[ Rev._
- [ Class _ /
- 3. _ Sheet _ / of- /
Document _ 1 Identi fica tion Ploe or Pitting Mark No. C.G.5E. System No. _ ,7S 1 SA
- 4. CllTR - _
./J - .- - -
Weld No.- 5. Weld History Record QL as_ .2&. _ .___. _
~
_8_.
.aa.
2L 8.,_ C ) 6. RT Inspection Report 2E s t 7. _.d[ d[ ._ LP Examination Record _
,- - 26 t .8.4. I 8
HT Examination Record _d(__ _,d_., 1___
.j._ _ .__ _ ,,,,,,,.
//___
d 9 4/,'._ 1 Nameplate Rubbing _,_ _ ,z
, 10 1 - A$_ J25 .48. 24 Code Data Report ,
P_,&_, 11 _ Inspection Report .,__.,_,, 12 Ok. , , , , _ _ Radlographa Rgviewed ___
- 13. 1 _,d(,',,
C'Rnr e /a n a fe o o r h _,,,,,,, 14-EaruxceJ Anef Ob _,_i,_,,,,,,_ g g g g 15 Doc. on ' j 16 Rad, review g,,, f)df7 ,j.p, c review M // ,2//,,ev _Co. __ 4-xw _Date 9 6 9 /' 9 5'~ O Co. _ rew _D ate g //0/95~~ '
~~
R ~': ~~ Ps.rm OAS P1 I.r
. jl. .
9-26-74 , rev. h-35-75 - n 4-5 t- .- ,d* { }. . _ :. 1,. .%
- 4 d .to .;,- kr u i ...
.. p TAM RJP A. ._ b,-,4'E.
1;
%.J-\- = - . . 81 l-'.Pwu w.2iuMta P0wfR $7ATsos.: g,,.
N,ENRY J. eat $(R. CO. . AIO. [~ NCONFOllMANCE REPORT PAGE- f 0F ill f_ ~ DWC/ INST AL L ATIO N =0. 7.DWC/IN51 Al LATs0N NAME: 3.PUICONTRACT ND. 4.SUPPUERICONTRACTOR'NAIEI'
!s-wi w 9._.TT##;# ""fA _Jo70 C. INSPECT 0ll. 7.DATE:
. a. 7. n, sex.
- 8. SPECIFICATION N A.
- 0 w # _21'y/yj fgdGo .i im57tCTION PLA8e WQ -
I l O D.. # # g 7 4.. D e s. W_i s H . b 3. ..o ~ 3 @v U. ptsP0$1T80N INSTRUCTIO%s.v O!3CRIPT40N Of NONCONFORMANCE ... ; W~g HL Ul1PGalTlDN .TIF8CAflok
. . _ . . -- - ,,:-__, ~
oc.Wrio4 i Supp9ty_&_ou $_ .__ 7. - w _.. M ~ M
~
!ML c o d A i a % d .u M M ._. .no. 11 d' . s. )
; q 9, y g . - - r -} _- g -
j ,,
; El.w. ' '6.l'- 1b' . . . W "-
_ NM h qd_ fSTE a T. D. 5 .MN F_%, _ . . L
~
- w - :w.% . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ ..
be. tMvrailed % __ M , ,
~~
; 'c"y -] '"y.y *-: pePxb. __ , ,
.i -
j,M' .
~ '
wur. n.w_ at+ . . . _ . . a sMW . . . . toom, bee h_h 3mra - M,, 4 _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _
.4 o. % g M o.ugte ('M-D_*. _ e _ .. 4 . . ___
t h . d e .nca pe.e tvirt_. h 4 $ __ a-
.vLL b ea. m N a.c. E d f .3 _D t ' A
~
8 b(_
% , .) ,i_/' ,~ __ . _
. ~
ke w ta c +m.ch ._%e. q . .~ .. _ . ..
@34
%T ta ken. %ew _bW . JJ . .__ . /fW tg. _ __
oer. e. hu . owc 1. fik.L._ _ . REPLY. E.QUESTFD .BY_J2.a S.-P/I . ^ Vewi>\su C-kw.k. toa.s. . _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ C6M7ltdEcl.D'-O M ItEvitW t;0Ahlt (HE00lRED ON ALL ACCEPT / REPAIR DISPOSITIONS) k.h . . . . _ . . . .
.I E l
i
..e .
*' _RA% ,)
j
^ . ; ; ,: . r.- . - .} 3
. --- -.. KEl CONSTRUCilGN E .
b cD. M. . . . .. _ . . . _ _ S&L OAfE CC SPON50H ENOR_DATE CG&E G.A.&S. DATE K68 OAE DATf.
,. - ... . ~.
REPAIR /RCWORK C0tAFLL1E AND ACCEPTABLE '.. r- . . . . 5. . ~. ., ; .
.--..;..~.jli..).Iy.~d.;
7 INSPECTORIENGliuEER
~
dATE .
. - - . a_. .._. .. _ :. . . _ .
CAUSE :- ,.~. . , ,
, J ..(,i
.. _ ;,, : . ._. 15. CORRECTIVE ACTION
~'
. s a w a;.ic u V l .-
d w.2M _. J;. 2- 5 5 5.1:i M9 E.. . 6w%
, ). . . .
- W'"~
. .a.; ~ ~ ' + . .12. ' . A::-. .
2:'.~M i X1L :.I.' .. :.t:. .. I - - I I sk.a. .
-D
. . . . . . . ...';:. 4 ;;y =-:q q - N o s k.i n s. c g. -Ma e RGQD .' . . - ,
._..um=.=--- . . _ .
( -e
. _. T. 2.F TE- m^ '~. W. - % - - . . - :.._...-
. . . 4 -5:.=-rgg-;w-;;3A .M. --; _ _ . . .._ ,,.E ... . % .t &.. . . . , w.. : .
__- r,.r. . - n- .n-' ec . : u... ..t ;Iq.-QQ.iU e Z ._.~_ _...6:"i . -rg .7.- t- 6 W ,_
.v n .ii. . .iSXr.+?q.t a r.a ruonic , sp.c+ai /. . s:a4 if% =-=-=-u- m=co*u.= o.m.w
,o. ?>..=... --
... s. :.: : ....... .;;,.:.. . .. .. e.. . : , :.= .
~ ; u 0'-..r.. - . .~. . c =. .- ._ . .
...G-%gt ,... .s. a, a[ g g . . . ~
j_ __
- w. a. neffanet9ATsoni .~ -
. l .;.
{ . i . :. . . m: - e . . - .-
. m.,. . . e.
. - .. l.... ..... m , .... ,,,,,,, , .,,,,,,,,,,. .
& l't"_ ud M h e Gt sly. _k%
l. l __ l rcot.d D e t IL v s*M a_AJel . fh// l i _ nt h3d _0. %ner' lu- _ -!h_-o N._ N -~P// l
.- _ _g
...r:i.=.:. .p. ..= ; l
' ~-
. .. . - - ; . u
- l -
*A - ... . .
1::. : :. * ;.',.?.. ;. ;. _i ?; Q..Mi l
. l'
_-_- .l
, ; i .f. _.; [__
on .;_a o , n 6
; .on . ,. .
,- 4
-1 _a_ _
_. . s.
...3. .__- - -.
.- l -
. ..:.- # ,x.2 .
.u.u...-.r a. . .
. .. _ v. . l y. .... l gog ....:..
ql - .. l A o _
- w __ t[ l - I .
o _ o o -_o - I I
-. 1 -
. .. 4 .. . :.m; . i .;. r.
.l
~ ^
TzrF: Surriu %e.e i l l C.ePoe r
- _a 9 4 7 r.= _
i . F. I
-;g
- g
__ g ,
..sm l_ .: .. .
l l . . . ... . 3 +_. I . - I
- - ~
. l l -
- . .- e n .
__ -..i - ; )
- . . - _ 3
+ .. .:- l l
-- ; :::.:!!d:$fi_* l . gA . * :..
l l Q
.s _
'w.v.:v:2;e
. l , q . .g g g 1 ......u.z-.,.. .t . .
-. .- ~.: .; - : :-- - l : . .~ -
l ,. Q g,p g
.i. a. . . -- I.,. :.3-p: - l a l. :. 22 . .
l
.a
.__ ._. .. ..- - -l l g
._..,...........a._)..
. ..a 2 : .,. - .
. .m,... .
a :.- l vgQ j
. . .- n --. 3;c:) .- 9, ;... l _ _
_ .. .. .. .t j i
-w . ; : .- . .
. w.:..u[q Q.yy :;. l 3.i y 5-l .
. ~ f-
~
. = __ qp.:p =;;:- .
..r.
- r..-- ..
\
-~ --
.1 :-3 .;u c; 3 g. 7 .- .
\
- $. e = y. n c ;.. _ _ . -:w .: a- : .:
. _ ;. . . . . m m _ . _.m . . . . .
,.s ___-. ._..: .
c.- -1 . .r.. .. _ 3 ~ ---m = -W . =.-; --riw :- . .g.:-:.- .. ; - : - - -- . _ _ __ s .
.=-_ =_c- w_ _ _ _ _ - - h_l ._ 6 / . -! ----+ :- -
=
a '
~,._-
. ~ ' z ~: 7. . -
........-e.. .- . .. ... . . . . g. s e, , , . ,
&OLY- W t. 3 1 0 0 1 0_. >.... .
DE SOPP...O .c G.%. . .k,03j_ f.l.1r fu GGR. GI(if. UDf61"I(.$' ~ DAM cn.9GNCO BYEC';to
;*:p^* "Y~~~"
0.QltiW tJfAGIQ" \>.L4LL
-fAM
.,. st.c'at.m'.tci ^ .+~~~~ ~ :i =:*h . ~? .
pL AT'C MO. ID D ' -H3 ITW3497.400Ur-3-Se Pjf. ~' rG d
. .: .:. .. t->
( =/- ) y a df&.; i : ':
~
1 tipu e ac,}<. :_2aw 2.>_*@tt:. f sem.>
; Cl OE y
. ] pgg pggg99,9,3;.. . . g ,, . . a. .- L . ."
. . u. -.o ... . w ., . .
'l M9 (iEcHER,1C : m> .Of:
- ~
o o c., os t . . . -
.. . . w ar,.,'. x l.
.... bu . che.cs :.a-a-geH12
. wm ~ mm ed%y . . . .
' . . . . .c .. . , . .. . .. ..._-_.........
w tTn re tx.tOd: OD_ k.i> York,C. OP5CliivL: = A v n t o x i ,.. = *
. c.
ea e oto. irsaranos c%muswa =pscousuc.s quwqueoce
~
1 / tb / .
/ . /' / .' .
.4/5 - _ . . _
/. / / /
2, / em._/ww " sood/ ason l
. .s..v.o_d./ e _ro.s _ _-
/ .
' q_3]. % 1 995&eod se.gElm'cs esco'/ssoo' / . .
on.(-T.u6ct, opn.uiof_: w.vr .Rosc . - - -
~
~5.,rstw . . Irscoocue.s Moesi)tanPcttws_Estidth.~ . . -- -
~
i _ _i /8 Yvo#/s v_o#.. . -_-
.' . . 2) iEcuod= 90 ' sir V.d.- Vgg3.tht.
f/b .! S4"? #-
%_4.
00 %; Chi g--.i.;, __z, /9 . \ eaco / eeo.n. - - - - - -
- 3) 2/s, gsy -
YEphbd a-3 / (p croo'/aroo'. ' uyALN y,; 4.'3 . W GC W GU T2QMb aW 3.g.y
'7
. t.J na GO.
D.W f:6TU0S00 (IP 900 0. OPGE.: .. . es.cr ifas. l_'E Tooau. D. e % 7;Gilo2 u M.s 4._W.sco;vaou2 9: YF.6.. .:.>7-- _/ _ .1. / .S_. / -
~. / -- - -
6_ A. ./ .S /- /. / .. / .,n- _. '.2,../.. l_ _ . .... _ _./._ _ _ _ ._ _ ._ . ./. _ ._ ./ / .. . . . . 3 (L...
- . - /_. / / /
. 7o-x. ._./. _Co.G_ict.tucc. (p NQuee0)
., = . . . _ _
=
c 2 o o n. 9, e u c a c. _. . . ...;c l ..: OCGr.cson.: .
! 1:. . . . .
OPCRtGOV. ; .e-AAN .? *
- j Ga r. co . e.4 ITsemem $_ - -
Ect.r uos. IT se2wms-' .
/S ~ __
1 \ / '.. ~ \ /6 _. . ./. e,.___. _.._i
.. . . . . . e_s.v5. ./.d. o..s.,,..
c :a.ht 4._. i g no yI u n.. < s,y .
.? /.'.1. . .
/ -.._. .': . ' ' '
i %.L1.. I 5<.do.1a. ibi.~~ . 5 -.3. /..(.o...._ .._- . ../ _-: . .
. . . -
- 3 * *j ( )'. . 4. ..yo. o_*/..g ,, Q
~.
\
.i
?.
_O)..IsW.Y,th
- t,) u~ae ro Me.c ;. Tis;r.s.>.ic. > ,, m;.nr> a n enci- 4ri sa.., a.vt. ,.e . m.e . .e s . w. aus e: cur /,w. :.Vs T '~ '^
- 1. G' " rosa.. ca.m.u.
u :. .. . a r , . s, , .. xr . .. .. . ... ..... ...... -.. :
. .- .:a ---
1
(
-I.,,f.,*..'
. ( ('
, HEN RY J. KAISER, CD.
ripNCONFORMANCE REPORT
; WM. H. ZIMMER POWER STATION NO. E~G O;'f PAGE I 0F d
- 1. 0?:G/ INSTALLATION NO. 2. DWG/ INSTALLATION NAME: 3. P0/ CONTRACT NO. 4. SUPPLIER / CONTRACTOR NAME:
! S-%9 v.w ta TFE?d!$ g" Ms- 70'70 H . 7. 14 A ss e.e.
5.lNSPECT10N PLAN NO.: 6. INSPECTO R;
@ 7. DATE: 8. SPECIFICATION NO.
lO D M f4,fs Desth 41.Cbneyw s,- 3-s t #-2i'W ff ,ASMEYESdco i S.DESCRIFTION OF NONCONFORMANCE 10. DISPOSITION ll. DISPOSITION INSTR UCT10%STIFICAT10N L i Locuriou ! Suppees son poet c.c A .a a m e A t Qex.o &7-no - E Ma0 M du Id coV Auc.clo 4 s 50'
!_aw m - s-na 2 m % o- h 0 A -. %
a* M .,J w e e om n
- S'r5TE M ~.I . D.
- co Teuc.To e.at
~
. _Re.cedie.e.m e.c T5 ems +e
' be- Cavra, s cA Ck.eced -
l f c_ ult %E "t'o toALL @__
$/1s ID
_bNdie 4 . be.hoGL hold
- MA O I iom 6e sn. 'is ms rao .A /fE// 'CB#A . N l __ oh a. s tsqv a.ua\.e_ (*b'- S D %/ ~Of '
'4 rkh dee s e+ Ne e.'n'i+ d e -
W h s_ % A,LL bea.emc_ Erh. sf 2'I .ch' 9
*Mht uut Tb C04koS NC. e
~
by tamber. h e_ heL% " _L:er e_ TeethM o.p el fe'uctL QRpl V O,CO!:ee TCh D V. o 3 cp /
. .- ~.
c wauw u v w - Ye M_LQd19.b.focf % _C,o.L193.e'IELd D -\MO [O.\ AO ..A N i ,
- 12. REVIEW BOARD (REQUIRED ON ALL ACCEPT / REPAIR DISPOSITIONS) > V
~ p KEICONSTRUCTION TEl EkR. 1 S&L DATE CG&E SPONSOR ENGR DATE CG&E Q.A.&S. DATE KEl QAE DATE
- 13. REPAIR /REWOR K COMPLETE AND ACCEPTABLE
, INSPECTOR / ENGINEER DATE
! 14. CAUSE [ 15. CORRECTIVE ACTION M O (d ,
- p w A -ta a> 4 9 A .
t 6a4 J ). % P i w i swst n rica.o ps. cGac ist. sat all. A.I.(1). QA FILES (ORIG.) C,
$1.((h HJICCO FORM NO. QA
, s *. . . , -
e --*- =* = ' NQ'; C TC M j.;* Q Q 0g= ' I *
- w. n. II.9ttflP:WE SPATIO 81 vs . E - M r.i. a .c _ R s i. :. . a rt e t t s- - r - .- : rw e e l:3. : ,.. ::,. h;. ::,,,,,::,. :.,,,_,,,,,,, , . ,.,.,.,,.,.,,.
M sLt uo mhe m siv. has I l 3 recus w__,- ut v mA a M _ Asp I
' 1$ dei Ot'W ner' lu -
!ra 9(NN-M/ l
%)
g j 1 I I I
- - o .oo O di O
4./ I [ t I I i . - . , 1 I I 1On -
!- I 3 A o M l- I .
- o o o o -l l -. .
3 ! e ^ i l l REF : Su n i L L ANC.E l l Ph !l KePoe.r
- 2947 l l a ' '
- I I rg l l %:9 .
1 I m
.i..- , .,
I l . . .# l 1 q
- 1 I I
l l r l i I i l l i l l i l i fl l l - i i i j e . I I I i
-n . ..w ,, . . . . .
~ '!* "
*:.?..**. . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . g,.eas '.
- i J w Bot..T' n:.Osm d tO tA.
' ;- DESIGNED'BY SOPPQ.GSS\0d 0.N AM 66N. El(16dDNiEII.b DATF i
- G,O l.) T A tt J W G k J T 1JMLL. CHECKED BY i,
DATE
~
ggc gg. MARK $ ..
. s .y., ,..
PLATE Ido.10D ,4e:T;;a. ryn:cd/ 2. 5-se ey: x4ho,., , '-
. .: .. ... a . . .; . . tam ! . r , t e wP-) . ,.
'1 DM C H&%'. : 1-s-et B-(: N1 ad,64 ;i. i-
- ~'
tonc s ) y Lt.uyy.) OI o2.'03. 04 '
. 3 DW RETG05tOtj:
.. . . . cce ve ) .
$f: . ( w w .) ' . . .
~- ' -
. '} OtW RECHEC,k,: G(:
O6
.O O C, . 'T .
.. toun) wuur )
- by ckscvs :i-o-steHW P d'i. .
.: to-v) .. mowy. .
il ibibim Teostort: 9D se.iP. Torg 09e.cutoc_: owe nos c: ' .[- ect,v oc :,. irse.c;owuz Wsequetxs 3 9s c o us ue.s 4Ssseveces
/ e> ~/
\ ./ /
/ . .
4/s / / 'l
/
g o ci/ s ,o / enoo/seco " esos/ asoi . i ~ 3kQ 's /g) . s s,od/c ec5 sebEl880 5 esod/ssoo" /
/
'~lDAN-C.YEC1<. o?&fWDP ; DM...R9 .
~
f.our f.bs, irssovGu?.4 6.1dT6: 1 % tA., Pi?.E s h 4 E 6 14 N . - ' i /6 vvcoVevo# . . ' , 8) TGosod C)o ictR V.id.= 5630a. PM. 4/5 " i _Z/7 5'-o8/*'oo$ 8 e e / e s ".
- 3) z/3 feiMJ = qoo Poi.
3 / (4 svoo7 svoo*. '. u) Ay ;+.p'>u WA d 3.R e.s 'x oso en esTTsc,
\d s % 6 V G 1 J. h \JQlds 0\
!. . a t sso.
'7 D/.W fS1130300 (lF RGQ D). OfGO_: .. . .
. /
i eor ucS.' iT seousu 2>"ssuerXs S9sssusum 43'ssopeota e,p g l
. \ /8 / -
. / / / (L 11.
s /s i .
/ .
/ .. / f%,
Z / "7 / 3/%
/ /
/
/
/
/
/
b9 E l Dr.M ft[CH(JCic.(If RGQutCGO) 3O DA.M GWCQc. 'J ! j y CP5ccToft.: .' . .
.. OPdbTO9.: LA RW E 5 * -#
- =
6.xr. yas. IT sGts.ra.m.n. EctT, IJoS. lW se2vma 5 '
-, g
\ l \ / S. / ..
\ / 6 so.es/s+cs geO g
- '. _~h. / 5 /
- 4. / .6
-ie --.L. / "I
' 'esco % .cc? v
/ : a.so s/ e ;.c$
5 3 / (s
. '/... / 7 -
/ ~3 / (p .
g_7069es co*- .
$ _ O.Gf.n.CV,.s : 1,) occ ro u. Acw ar acao.aco renc.cn in eact-w s xnc z ph u .. eceocae.a wu eau ro ,sca ucve. ,. c noa es, e ,au.ne m/,. ur.
I
.. ... ' AricR n4ATj ru r. .. y oAy conc e.c uJ A,:: RtJM o A.) T W cMYsRC.
pr. A rc .w>. ri.e Ar.es tvrA At.s M i u t. r-= . .
^
) - , . utwiiYt EA41s.4
; .' *..we wrianutaPowinstAfscs ~
40, E*b ' NCONFOHMANCE . FA40 REPORT f op a- -_ o m anstati.Arte==0. > oiTunstas tshow "a.toic6fficino.' *(iiirFue niconraActon'nAW (------' ' 5-H@ w$rg(ginal etAg ap-itm 0. lYMo*$ $nAnsa-t.tkSPECIOP
. .._7Q ?O 7.9 Aft:
- H. 7. KA sse.sc.* " "
E. fit %flCAfick ko. 4 - M D.4 @ M..,._Cgstg .. _ g.W.%.,@3po a-s_m ,,it2rplyf,fg m doa,,, , ; .oc.,,n
., ..c c. .
= mon n..msmo u.cu. pun,ic..
e r rio n *. S u e. ,-- . b a i ; ew_ 7 * -. M._
.aMA.-
bt, e.oh A au.,_. A 4 +n_4. ut.43. $_ 1 w wir.se __ _. .. m - Et.vt. 'WY- G . . h Ten A ps!.9I_LcNE:mt c h4%a uk. %_ L a \- %s a.ne+: %t% -is .____ . . .. ... pe. tuvmueA % pe e l __ e ,, i.e. e,wn. te .ianu. e....- __ . yf7 .4X!
) _ _ _ . . . . . _,.
Vo 4% '. ke.%e._.balt. . ...__..a ^
~ ~ ~ ~ -
.Wak.. r:
% M 4
- %m.bes. . st.
. 2, h anvrauma$__ a >
y+ l h .d 9.rudca. age (e-s.4 E- . . . . _ i . pc.m.rd&..h 3- ..../ t {~Lt. b eAcwg *,r4'u.a. ef .
% we to ceA.d_%,w. .I.Thik gg.d Q _.. _..
I'.}1 .. ._. rLa mws, . ww_.hk . a.r. e. %M . owa . Siw.t.._ _ . REPl#. f EQUESTED BY-S a 3 -N-- _.. h .. . - . . Toem cAad. rue.3.. ~. ._ _ _ _ .. _ . .- g Mptded0-Mc(cad 4... atYltw 30A8u (M10tJI A(0 0X ALL ACCtrTtaff A De$PCS4T100tti d
,p g
_ . . . q g g)
& / i Ei 1
/ 7 '/ Q, .C . h... . . .Y/7 f/ Kr.1 GCN5tsWHk (QR.
sa,t. satt eC M *Pottson En6s p t
. eft .. . CC&C 0.AAS. - 5 ATE Eli DA7.
- - -_ ...CAE .
affair /tCW0aK C4WPtLIC ANO ACCCMA$t.E -
. ~ 7ki,lTcTes/ Sat,41/A OTE CAvst ,:- 15. GORR(Cfiv( ACfl0N b& m e+a%
KU.bd't) M $, , m W A.
) M f$lo .Sk 9.r.%.CikJGe~ R x -
-i
~.
+...<visu.u.,. i m n n.it.4r r. - .8
. ' = a. -
C h 5410 .. . - -
. "" " * ***"O*n gq ~
..:....-.. ^': :'
. (@"}}