ML20134B339
| ML20134B339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood, 05000000, Marble Hill |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1974 |
| From: | Coughlin J PSI ENERGY, INC. A/K/A PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF INDIANA |
| To: | Muntzing L US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132B505 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-293 NUDOCS 8508150593 | |
| Download: ML20134B339 (2) | |
Text
_. _ _ - -
w- x
- 2. .
,% [g
{
-,a i
w: Lu.mti-4. -
G r. , Os C. cow .
~ PUBLIC 0611750022 SERVICE INDIANA
&e.sCoi4An Aucaat n m l.
..*.e we >
".a.b#4 "
Mr.
v rning Huntaing a
01 ~*2'.c r o f .Secala tion Wetc Energy Corniscion
'a'ashiraton, D.C. 20515 Lesr !'.r. Entzirg:
We
' 44 .ure
- *. pt. eait to confirm our plan; to w et with y ou
- f t . I'/II. , in your Bethesda office. at 1
- 00 P.M. , '4ednesJmy.
? .1,. j will L in sttet.danee*
a.m. 'bu.tt..
%ntgovary In - Vlee Preirr
- V'ee r N nt aflacle'ir, l'.:*. I.
' . ,. . r e - %neu*.e r f i' . .' te n t -L..;. ..ee r i ns. P. . . I .
r
.,1 f: .t - P art ner :.n t er FrN ect 3 West i ngtuase
'. Ward .*cace;ste. tetr.nd Di rector.
-ar ent LanJy "ar6cnt and Lund/
. c.
IT . .i ve.
to noti'y you. i t.
ar.1
. at .s .r. fme. aures for tna .Wordance N
rpliention ofwitt. procedures C..atam Plant in your July t *:i s.$
W' nur ) ir int ;gr.ent is to use the byr s:./hr sidw od O n:
t t.- Lesignc,
!!i .
'4 wl ar d n~rv. ;r , F1 ant ."bsr.e" risnt. lber.et N. m5M5 req ui n rx t. . .e tel;..re.r replic.iti .n at *.ur proposed Marcie
<.t l i t.e l thi.; "t tee'* plant e.ects all of the w .. ' ' r.n n a r,2 t t.re r ir.2i n 'r u r 3 '. V. er.e n * ,
- ~ ~t rr ' 3 ..r riate.*nt,sret. i tect-er .*.' near en loya s" hwe tsa t selecterl furtr.er, the thl:
<t u lf ust ier. review. aetter will init!'tto tr the base plant. As tne "bace" plant
'We nr.ve res4 prca ur-: With interreat your J ./ l')??+ :clicy at ater.ent. {
tatic :. ?:r. .tr.ai r.* Juppear ancluJing: cl"nr. we weald lu. to IIscan's af ecific 'a*hile the !
potentisi imple=er.-
- a. c.snt sna q 4igent arrar. gen.fr.t z ue t.
L. .
- ts turt.!te exis urientatice.,
e-p. 4nt sy :t.: . ~ si fic ,t L,:.; ; c ;n 33 vera shirel synte s, etc.mlstlor. Salves used in tr..r Jyran/Itral.1wocJ lec t.3ni r.epst
.'ite indre1 Influences:
precters ara r.ctr. ode w.y.eact. ne. as differ.nt reismic design B508150593 PDR 850610 FOIA LEIGHTO84-293 PDR 1000 East Main Strael. Pfainfield. Indana 46168 317. 839.9611 ~
b . _ .
a h'sf' w
l r * *e , ,
August 72. 19T4 Mr. L. %nning A ntsing e.g. >
- d. Regulatory procedura3 changes: such as the influence of the fort.hcoming revision to the format and content guide, and the soco-to-te issued standard review plans.
h .a n * .on, we voald like to explore procedures for estly resolution of site-ir.4.ced parameters in order to gain greater assurance of the accept-ability af var plans as early as pssible.
f We 4; reetate this opportualty to meet witt. you with every expectation of s s eger.cTul initiation of our first nuclear effort.
Sincerely.
\s
+. s ;
Os .s.. , A p .
James Co uhlt(
Vice President .kclear JC:cs N .
. ...-* ~
Q()h k):w st*: l$$,?.
- c'
- ~
t * * ,M&& a
8$ ' N, UNITED STATES
- ; , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i REGION 11
'# J 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.. sulTE 3100 =
, - av [ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 JUL i 1981 , ,x Georgia Dower Comeany f S ATTN: Mr. J. H. Miller, Jr. O '.o Exequtive Vice Presicent } #U/
/[ -
270 Peachtree Street Atlanta. GA 30303
$% 28 -
E FILE COPY % g/ggly Gentlemen: (
St. ject: Recort Nos. 50-424/31-05 and 50-425/81-05 N eb ". p,i Thank you for your letter of June 8,1981, informing us of steps you have taken to correct the violations concerning activities under NRC Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 brought to your attention in our letter of May 13, 1981. We will examine your corrective actions anc ::lans during suctequent i
inspections.
We appreciate your cooperation with us.
1 Sincereg,
/
/ /
. C. Lewi s, ff.ng Direcfor ivision of Re41 dent and Reactor Project Inspection cc: K. M. Gillescie, Construction Project Manager l E. O. Groover, QA Site Sucervisor l
- 0. E. Dutton, Project General Manager i
\
$60I s I/
w ,. _ ,
Fo i A -1H -7 93
$DREDC505 boo 4h4 PDR f \(
Ur PILIAL wt 4
. .Georgo Powie Ccmyny
, rost Offic9 BIa 4545 Ltirnts Gzrgo 30302 L
Teieonone 4o 522 60s Vogtle Project Soutnern Comoany Services. Inc.
Post Office Box 2625 Birmingham. Alacama 35202 Tesegnone 205 870-6011 June 8, 1981 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Reference:
Office of Inspection and Enforcement IE: II: BRC Region II - Suite 3100 50-424/81-05 101 Marietta Street 50/426/81-05 Atlanta, GA 30303 File: X7BG10 Attention: Mr. R. C. Lewis Log: GN-134 Gentlemen:
The Georgia Power Company wishes to submit the following infomation concerning the violations discussed in your inspection report 50-424/81-05 and 50-425/81-05.
We concur with the finding identified concerning failure to follow welding procedure purge requirements. The welder failed to properly control gas flow for back purge as required by procedure. A non-confomance report has been initiated to disposition the weld. The procedure was reviewed and found to be adequate. The contractor reminded welding supervision to enforce conformance with procedures. Full compliance was achieved May 28, 1981.
We concur with the finding identified concerning failure to follow storage procedure requirements. The frequency of our inspection prooram in this area has not been adequate in the past. The identified items alung with previously identified Georgia Power items have been corrected. Quality Control has been requested to increase their efforts in this area of inspec-tion. Full compliance was achieved June 5, 1981.
We concur with the finding identiMed concerning inadequate measures to- control handling of safety-related material or equipment. Georgia Power had a procedure for control of handling material and equipment, but it was inadequate and was withdrawn. The contractors were designated to conduct inspections, but Georgia Power Company did not follow up on the program implementation. The inspection program has been discussed with contractors and is being reviewed and updated. The previously deleted procedure has been re-issued for review and revision as needed. A rigging program will be re-implemented and maintained. Full compliance should be obtained by August 28, 1981.
pDRADOCKJ -wa mo7o1 05000424 PDR
g . .
Mr. R. C. Lewis
. Unit 5d States Nuclear Regulatory Conmission June 8, 1981 page two Neither the inspection report nor this reply contain any proprietary information and may be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
4 Doug Duttt
+ w Project General Manager Doug Dutton states tnat he is Project General Manager of Georgia Power Company's Vogtle Project and is authorized to execute this oath on behalf of Georgia Power Company and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the facts set forth in this letter are true.
A
~
h
\ i l t
\ .
GPC: M MN b--
Doug Dutton
]
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 8th day of June,1981.
< k- S-o&
Notary Public, Ge6rgia, State at Large My Commission Expires March 21, 1985
<a,'-; -
'Mr. R. C. Lewis
, . United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission
, June'8, 1981 page three xc: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Attn: Victor J. Stello, Jr. , Director
- Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, D.C. 20555 J. H. Miller, Jr.
W. E. Ehrensperger F. G. Mitchell, Jr.
R. J. Kelly C. F. Whitmer ,
R. E. Conway D. E. Dutton H. C. Nix R. W. Staffa K. M. Gillespie L. T. Gucwa C. R. Miles, Jr.
'E. D. Groover D. L. McCrary R. A. Thomas
- 0. Batum J. A. Bailey M. Z. Jeric B. L. Lex h
l
, ' A og - OFFICIAL COPY jg ,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
y , j
- . .
- z REGION 11 o ## 101 MARIETTA ST.. N.W.. sulTE 3100
%OV[
AT1.ANTA, GEoPGIA 30303 MAY 131981 Georgia Power Company ATTN: J. H. Miller, Jr.
Executive Vice President 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Report Nos. 50-424/81-05 and 50-425/81-05 This refers to the routine inspection conducted by Mr. W. P. Kleinsorge of this office on Acril 20-22, 1981, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 for the Vogtle facility. Our preliminary findings were discussed with Mr. K. M. Gillespie at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear to violate NRC requirements. These items and references to pertinent requirements are listed in the Notice of Violation enclosed herew'th as Appendix A. Elements to be included in your response are delineated in Appendix A.
Wa have examined actions you have taken with regard to previously identified enforcement matters. These are discussed in the enclosed inspection report.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. If this recort contains any information that you celieve to be proprietary, it is necessary that you make a written application within 20 days to this office to withhold such information from public disclosure. Any such application must include the basis for claiming that the information is proprietary and the proprietary information should be contained in a separate part of the document. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room.
a n e -
U
')
7-
G;orgi a .Powar' Company 2 Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
/' ,$f 1 C. Lewi[,[ cting Dir[ctor Division of Resident and Reactor Project Inspection
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix A, Notice of Violation
- 2. Inspection Report Nos. 50-424/81-05, and 50-425/81-05 cc w/ encl:
K. M. Gillespie, Construction Project Manager-E. D. Groover, QA Site Supervisor D. E. Dutton, Project General Manager
- l i
APPENDIX A l NOTICE OF VIOLATION
)
! Georgia Power Company Docket Nos. 50-424, 425 Vogtle 1 and 2 License Nos. CPPR-108,109 l As a result of the inspection conducted on April 20-22, 1981, and in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (October 7,1980), the following violations were identified.
A. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V as impleriented by paragraph 17.1.5 of the PSAR requires activities affecting quality be accomplished in accordance with documented procedures. Pullman Power Products General Welding Infor-mation Requirements, dated January 31, 1981, require that back purge flow rate during welding be approximately 20 cubic feet per hour.
j Contrary to the above, on April 21, 1981 acW ties affecting quality were not accomplished in accordance with documented procedures in that the back' purge flow rate was in excess of 70 cubic feet ger hour during the welding of the root layer on containment spray system weld joint 03-W-02. ,
This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement II.E.). This violation
- . applies to Unit 1 only.
B. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V as implemented by paragraph 17.1.5 of the PSAR requires activities affecting quality be accomplished in accordance with documented procedures. GPC specification X4AZ01 Division P1 revision 4 section Pl.6.2 requires carbon steel piping assemblies to be stored such that they are free draining with upward protruding vertical branches provided with covers or rain hoods. Section Pl.6.2 further requires that flange ends be provided with bolted wooden protective disks. Section P1.6.3
- requires that stainless steel piping assemblies be capped and stored on dunnage to prevent contact with ground water.
- Contrary to the above, on April 21, 1981, activities affecting quality were not accomplished in accordance with documented procedures in that the following the examples were noted
- 1. Numerous carbon steel piping assemblies contained standing water.
.2. Numerous carbon steel . piping assemblies had uncapped or unhooded open upward protruding vertical branches.
i
4 Several stainless steel piping assemblies had missing protective end Caps. n gh 9N _
Gsorgia Power Ccmpany Docket Nos. 50-424, 425 Notice of Violation License Nos. CPPR-108, 109
- 5. Several stainless steel piping assemblies were off dunnage in contact with mud.
This is a Severity Level VI Violation (Supplement II.F.).
C. 10 CFR' 50, Appendix B, Criterion XIII as implemented by paragraph 17.1.13 of the PSAR requires measures be established to control the handling of material and equipment in accordance with work and inspection instructions to prevent damage. ANSI N45.2.2-1972, " Packaging, Shipping, Receiving, and Handling of Items for Nuclear Power Plants (During the construction phase)"
has been identified as the applicable standard for material and equipment handling. ANSI N45.2.2 paragraph 7.4 requires an inspection program be established for rigging and a system be established that will indicate acceptability of all rigging after each inspection.
Contrary to the above, on April 21, 1981, adequate measures were not established to control handling of material and equipment in accordance with work and inspection procedures in that the licensee has no documented pro-gram for the inspection of rigging slings or chokers used for handling safety-related materials or equipment.
This is a Severity V Violation (Supplement II.E.).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are hereby required to submit to this office within twenty-five days of the date of this Notice, a ~ written state-msnt or explanation in reply, including: (1) admissien or denial of the alleged violations; (2) the reasons for the violations if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved;.(4) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Date:
.8 k UNITED STATES
. 8 + ~k -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 il REGION 11 g, 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., sulTE 3100 j"f ATLANTA GEORGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-424/81-05 and 50-425/81-05 Licensee: ' Georgia Power. Company 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Facility Name: Vogtle Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 Inspection a+ V near Waynesboro, GA Inspector: , .
W. P. 41einsor
- bYk Dat4 S'igned Approved by: . .
I7 /
A. R. Herdt, Section Ch1Af '0 ate Signed Engineering Inspection Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division
SUMMARY
Inspected on April 20-22, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 19 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of licensee action on previous inspection findings (Units 1 and 2),
safety-related piping (Units 1 and 2), steel structures and supports (Units 1 and 2) and status of IE Bulletins (Units 1 and 2).
Results Of the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in two areas; three violations were found and 50-425/81-06 Thank you for your letter of July 17, 1981, informing us of steps you have taken to correct the violation concerning activities under NRC Construction Permit No.
CPPR-108 brought to your attention in our letter of June 19, 1981. We will examine your corrective actions and plans during subsequent inspections.
We appreciate your cooperation with us.
Sincerely, P. J. Kellogg, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 2 Division of Resident and Reactor Project Inspection cc: K. M. Gillespie, Construction to g Project Manager #
E. D. Groover, QA Site Supervisor '
co D. E. Dutton, Project General Manager gf bcc: Document Management Branch i b
f{ p'9 State of Georgia J /.UG 101987 m--j .
,9 u , ,,cc% ,,,, ,
, a
'g f
G'. .
e
\/h i i
RIL e RII RII RII RII, h ,a Jnnarris:ht TEConi'an CEM6rphy AFGibson wn. PJ:" i gg 7 ayS1 7' /81 7 / ' ,/ 81 7 /81 VBrg/81 7 .
7,yf'81
$$fG
Georab P w'.t Comany post Office Boa 4545 Atlanta. Georgia 30302 b
T.ieonon. 4o4 522.eos Vogtie Project Southern Company Services. Inc.
Post Office Box 2625 Birmingham. Alabama 35202 Telephone 205 870 6011 July 17, 1981 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Reference:
Office of Inspection and Enforcement ID: II: BRC Region II - Suite 3100 50-424/81-06 101 Marietta Street 50/425/81-06 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Attention: Mr. R. C. Lewis File: X7BG10 Log: GN-137 Gentlemen:
The Georgia Power Company wishes to submit the following information concerning the violation discussed in your inspection reports 50-424/81-06 and 50-425/81-06.
We concur with the finding. identified concerning failure to control concrete vibration. The reason for failing to follow the vibrator spacing requirements of procedure CD-T-02 was due to c.ongestion of pipe sleeves, insert plates, etc. , in pour number A-088-049.
Our civil contractor, Walsh Co:struction Company, initiated a training class for concrete placement crews on June 9,1981. Topics included "Causes of Voids", "Comon Location of Voids", " Concrete Placing Methods", "Consoli-dation of Concrete", etc. Georgia Power E.ngineers and QC inspectors will attend, as applicable. The Civil Project Section Supervisor notified the Walsh Construction Project Manager of instructions for use of pencil vibra-tors in a letter dated June 8,1981, and a Field Procedure Change Notice was generated on June 20, 1981, to CD-T-02 on the use of pencil vibrators.
Quality Control and Area Engineers will increase their monitoring for proper vibration as prescribed by CD-T-02. Immediate corrective steps shall be instituted should they detect problems.
Full compliance was achieved June 29, 1981.
Neither the inspection report nor this reply contain any proprietary information and may be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room, tr rs, ,
w Doug Out n 4
Project General Manager 9109110" 81 1 PDR ADOCK 0424 G PDR
. s I. , .
fir. R. C. Lewis United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 17, 1981 Page Two Doug Dutton states that he is Project General Manager of Georgia Power !
- Company's Vogtle Project and is authorized to execute this oath on behalf l of Georgia Power Company and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the facts set forth in this letter are true.
i i l GPC: 1N Dou'g Dutton '
NP Sworn to and subscribed before me thi s /1- day of July,1981.
z'^tu . W.
- _ . . unsres. . _ ss 6===
g(muntegion Engifts MerCM 21. I'*
xc: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission 4
Attn: Victor J. Stello, Jr., Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, D.C. 20555 J. H. Miller, Jr.
R. J. Kelly R. E. Conway G. F. Head F. G. Mitchell, Jr.
C. F. Whitmer D. L. ficCrary
. R. A. Thomas J. A. Bailey O. Satum D. E. Dutton I. K. M. Gillespie E. D. Groover l L. T. Gucwa B. L. Lex C. R. Miles, Jr.
H. C. Nix .
R. W. Staffa J. L. Vota
-c. . , - + . - . - -, ,, .,--,.-,m-, . , . - , - - ~ . - . . - - . . , , , .
[mo\
. [ j, , .
- j ,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICIAL COP 9
' M 'r V r REGION 11
-k ,\ ' e' [ 101 MA AIETTA sT . N.tv, sulTE 3100
.....f a * '. A N T A GEORGI A 20303 JUN 19 :0 01 Georgia Power Comoany ATTN: Mr. J. H. Miller. Jr.
Executive Vice P esicen:
270 Peacntne Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Gentlemen:
Sucject: Recor: Nes. 50-424/31-06 arc 50-425/$1-06 Thi s refe-s to :ne routine inspection condue:ec by Mr. J. R. Harris of :nis office on June 2-6, 1981, of activities authorizec by NRC Construction Dermit Nos. CPDR-103 and CPPR-109 for tne Vogtle facility. Our preliminary fincings were discussed witn Mr. H. H. Gregory, III, Assistant Project Manager, at tne conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined curing the inspection and our fincings are ciscussec in :ne enclosec inspection recort. Witnin these areas, tne inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative recorcs, interviews with cersonnel, and observations by the insoector.
During the inscection, it was found tna: certain activities unce your license accear to violate NRC requirements. This item anc references to certinent requirements are listed in the Notice of Violation enclosed herewitn as Appen-dix A. Elements to be included in your response are delineated in Appendix A.
We have examined actions you have taken with regard to previously identi fied enforcement matters and unresolved items. The status of these items is discussed in the enclosed report.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter anc :ne enclosec report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
If tne report contains any information that you believe to ce exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary that you: (a) notify :nis office by teleonone witnin ten days from the date of this letter of your inten-tion to file a reouest for withholcing; and (b) sucmit within twenty-five days f-om tne cate of tnis letter a written acclication to this office to withnoic sucn information. If your receiot of tnis letter nas ceen celayec sucr tna less tnan seven cays are avaiiacie for your review, please notify nis office promptly so nat a new cue date may be established. Consistent with section 2.790(b)(1),
sucn application must be accompanied by an affidavit executec by tne owner of tne information wnicn icentifies tne cocument or cart thereof sougn: to :e witnnelc, anc a full statement of tne reasons on :ne basis of wnicn it is claimec :na: :ne 882'110510 9147a t '
. ' Georgia P'ower Company 2
i f
information should be withheld from public disclosure. This section further reouires the statement to address with specificity the considerations listed in i 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4). The information sought to be withheld snall be incoroorated i as far as possible inte a separate part of the affidavit. If we de not hear from j you in this regard within the specified periods noted acove. the report will ce i placed in the Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter we will be glad to discuss tnem witn you.
! Sincerely, i
- f. l.
R. C. wis, Acting Director I
Division of Resident and Reactor Project Inspection 4
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix A, Notice of Violation 4 2. Insoection Report Nos. 50-424/81-06
- and 50-425/81-06 t
cc w/ encl:
- K. M. Gillespie, Construction !
Project Manager !
E. O. Groover, QA Site Supervisor '
s
! D. E. Outton, Project General Manager I
b i
+
i i J f
}
1 I
.~. . ~ , _ . . _ . . _ . - - . . . _ - - _ , . . . - . - - - - . . - - . . , . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - , , . _ _ , . - . . . - - - - . . , _ - . _ _
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Georgia Power Comcany Docket Nos. 50-424 Vogtle 1 -
License Nos. CPPR-108 As a result of the inscection concuctec on June 2-6, 1981, anc in accorcance oitn
- ne Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (Oct:cer 7, 1980), tne following viciation was icentified.
1C CFR 50, Ac::encix 3, Criterion V requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented procedures anc instructions and shall be accomolished in accordance with these crocedures and instructions:
Procecure CD-7-02, " Concrete Quality Control", caragraph VI.E.7 requires the spacing of concrete vibrator insertions to be approximately 18 inches apart.
Contrary to the above, in the lower one-third of the concrete placement in pour numoer A-OSB-049, vibrator insertions were made tnrougn openings in :ne forms spaced three to five feet apart. The si::e of the openings and congestion did not allow the spacing of concrete vibrator insertions to be mace at the required 18-inch scacing.
This is a Severity Level V Violation (Suoplement II.E).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are hereby required to suomit to this office within thire.y days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including: (1) admission or denial of the alleged viola-tion; (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) corrective steps whien will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full c:mpliance will be achieved. Considefation may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, tnis response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Date: JUN 191981
=c u es em ~
@DR ADOCK 05000424 G PDR
, .f,. .JY*f%q%, UNITED STATES
^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1! *k L.I..' ti REGION 11
>, j ! ; / / 101 MARIETT A ST , N.W . sulTE 3100
'-.
- s' A*LANTA, GEORGI A 203C3 JUN 19 laci Recort Nos. 50-424/S1-06 and 50-425/51-06 Licensee: Georgia Power Comoany 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Facility Name: 'v ogt l e Occket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 Insoection at Vogtle Site near Waynesboro, Georgia Inscector: ' $W l/h/F/
J. R. yrri s 'Date' Signec Approved b Y h ;'Y'] 6 ~/7# P/
T. E. Conlon, S'ection Chief Date Signec Engineering Inspection Eranch Engineering anc Tecnnical Insoection Division SUMARY Inspection on June 2-6,1981 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 32 inspector-hours on site in the areas of structural concrete, construction status and previously icentified items. '
Rosults Of the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were icentifiec in two areas: one violation was found in one area (Failure to contrcl concrete vibration in accorcance witn procedure paragrapn 6). ,
2109110"S1 610731 PDR ADOCK 05000424 G PDR
REPORT DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contactec Licensee Employees K. M. Gillescie. Construction Project Manage" "H. H. Gregory, III, Assistant Ccnstruction Project Manager
'C. R. Miles, CA Fiele Supervisor
'E. D. Groover, CA Site Supervisor "M. H. Googe, Manager Fiela Ocerations
'B. C. Harbin, Civil Project Section Sucervisor
'O. C. Garner, QA Field Representative "J. E. Seagraves, Civil QC Section Supervisor
- R. W. McManus, Manager Quality Control Other licensee emoloyees contacted incluced four construction craftsmen, two technicians anc four office personnel.
Other Organizations "J. Duffy, General Superintendent, Walsh Construction Comoany "0. c. Armstrong, Civil Resicent Engineer, Bechtel "Attendec exit interview
- 2. Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on June 5,1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
- 3. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
~
(Closed) Infraction (424/81-01-01): Failure to sample concrete test cylinders. The inspector examined the licensee's response dated March 3, 1981 and imolementation of the resconse. A new method has been established to track sampling and testing of concrete. This item is closec.
(Closed) Inscector Followuo Item (424/79-13-01 and 425/79-13-02): Retriev-
, aoility of QC records. Examination of records on concrete pour numoer 2-01C-001, -002, -004 demonstrated that the licensee has uccated their re: orcs storage systems. Records requested by the NRC inspector were retrievec in a timely manner. This item is closec.
4 Unresolvec Items Unresolvec items were not icentified during tnis inscection. '
4
g
- 5. Indepencent Inspection The inspector observed ongoing work in the power block, results of concrete placements and controls in the soils and concrete testing laboratory.
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 6. Containment (Structural Concrete II) - Observation of Work and Work Activities, Unit 1)
The inspector observed partial placement of pour numbers A-082-049 in the auxiliary building and A-118-067C in the control building. Acceptance criteria examined by the inspector appear in the following documents:
- a. specification X2AP01; Forming, Placing, Finishing and Curing Concrete
- b. Procedure CD-T-02, Concrete Quality Control
- c. PSAR, Sections 3 and 17 Forms were tight and clean, rebar was properly installed and clean.
Preplacement inspection was indicated by the signed preinspection form.
Activities were continuously monitored by QC personnel. Examination of the batch plant indicated proper mixes were being delivered to specified sites, materials were being controlled and accurate batch plant records were being generated. Samples for temperature, slump, air content, unit weight'and strength met frequency requirements.
Observation of placement activities disclosed the following violation.
Procedure CD-T-02, " Concrete Quality Control", paragraph V1.E.7 requires the spacing of concrete vibrator insertions to be approximately 18 inches apart.
In the lower one-third (approximately 10 feet) of pour number A-088-049, vibrator insertions were made through openings spaced three-five feet apart in the concrete forms. The size of the openings, one foot wall width, and congestion did not allow the spacing of concrete vibration insertions to be made at the specified 18-inch spacing. Also most of the vibration was being done with pencil vibrators. The specified 18-inch spacing is not adequate for pencil vibrators. Failure to control concrete vibration in accordance with reouirements was identi fied to the licensee as violation numoer 50-424/81-06-01.
- 7. Containment (Structural Contrete I) - Review of Quality Records, Unit 2 The inspector examined quality records for pour number 2-01C, -002, -004 in the Unit 2 containment basemat. Acceptance Criteria examined by the inspector appear in the following documents:
- a. Specification X2AP01, Forming, Placing, Finishing and Curing Concrete
3 i
- b. - Cs-T-02, Concrete Quality Control
- c. PSAR, Sections 3 and 17 4-Records examined by the inspector included batch- tickets, ' batch plant inspection reports, preplacement inspection, test data for air, slump and temperature, strength results, curing, rebar splicing, aggregate and cement storage, and nonconformance reports.
No violations or deviations were identified.
l i
4 i
1 J
i e
)
i
. - - , . , e . -,
_ e ,-- .--7 y - -- -w.--- - - - o ,, ,- .w-,-..--,-- ,
- . v. . .
FEB 0 81882 .
. , ~ . ,
, s.
2 HQ FITE COET Georgia oow e Company !'
ATTN: Mr. "
Miller, Jr.
d l i';
Exe ,e Vice President P. O. Box 4+:
[
7 ./
Atlanta, GA 30302 -
N Gentlemen: -
~ s,/
Subject:
Report No D a 50-425/S2-02 This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. R. W. Wright of this office on January 12-15, 19S2, of activities authori:ed by NRC Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 for the Vogtle facility and to the discussion of our findings held with Mr. H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Project Manager, at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined curing the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations or deviations were disclosed.
We have examined actions you have taken with regard to previously identified enforcement matters. These are discussed in the enclosed inspection report.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room unless you notify this of fice, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written appli-cation to withnold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the recuirements of
- 2. 790( b)( 1) .
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, c
Paul J. Kellogg, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 2 Division of Resident and Reactor Project Inspection
Enclosure:
See Page 2 k vso205 M 996Rd8
FE8 0 81882 Georg1'a Power Company 2
Enclosure:
Inspection Report Nos. 50-424/82-02
, and 50-425/S2 cc w/ enc 1:
H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Project Manager E. O. Groover, OA Site Supervisor 0; 0. Foster, Dro' ject General Manager i bec w/ enc 1:
NRC Resident Inspector j Document Management Branch State of Georgia 1
i i
4 4
1 I
l f
4 l
,b l .g ..
l\ql} ,
l RWrignt:ht iUpright MCEMurphy VBrownlee P Kellogg !
l %/4 /82 QQ82 kb /82 L'[/82 1/ y-$2 l i
l i
l i
l
,' e-':; ; R' .
UNITED $TATES
. , .i J. ,
N'JCLEAR REGULATORY OCMMISSION
! ~.' ".), $
R E GI O N ll
' . , , , . [/ .8 101 MARIETTA si., N.W., SulTE 3100
, .j A LANTA, GEoRotA .10000
~ . , . .
Report Nos. 50-424/82-02 and 50-425/82-02 Licensee: Georgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Facility Name: Vogtle Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 Inspection at Vogtle site near Waynesboro, Georgia n
Inspector: 'K L t< m. g .
/ /f 2.
f R. W. Wright J Date Signed Approved by: / / Ol 'b f* L C. h. Upright, }4ctiq6 Chief Oge S1gned Engir.eering IsripectYon Branch Engineering and Technical Inspection Division
SUMMARY
Inspection on January 12-15, 1982 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 30 inspector-hours on site in the areas of QA inspection of structural concrete performance; followup of site auditors experience, training, and qualifications; field change notice controls; and previously identified items.
, Results Of the five areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
( Y NM -
_7 ,
l l
l l
1 i ,
l REPORT DETAILS
- 1. Pers,ons Contacted Licensee Employees
- H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Project Manager
- R. R. Allen, Asst. Construction Project Manager
- R. W. McManus, Manager Quality Control
- L. N. Brooks, Asst. Project Section Supervior (Civil)
- B. C. Harbin, Project Section Supervisor (Civil)
- J. E. Sanders, Project Section Superior "M. H. Googe, Manager Field Operations
L. V. Alvis, Concrete Testing QC Inspector J. Johnson, QC Placement Inspector
- T. Reedy, QC Placement Inspector R. Conner, QC Batch Plant Inspector E. L. Anderson, QA Field Representative O. C. Garner, Senior QA Field Representative M. T. Durban, QA Field Representative 4
C. M. Burke, QA Field Representative Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, tech-
- nicians, and QA/QC members.
Other Organizations
- J. Duffy, Asst. Project Manager, Walsh Construction
- G. Ryan, QA/QC Coordinator, Walsh Construction
- F. R. McCarty, Project Manager, Walsh Construction 1 *H. R. Reuter, Resident Engineer, Bechtel Power Corporation 1
NRC Resident Inspector W. E. Sanders
! " Attended exit interview
- 2. Exit Interview j The inspection scope and findings were summarized on January 15, 1982 , wi t h those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
~" ' - - ~~ ~~ - - ~ -
1,'. . .
. .. i 2
- 3. Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (Closed) Violation (424-425/SI-07-01): Consumption of Food and Drink in Storage Areas. The inspector examined the licensee's response dated August 11, 1981, and the implementation of the response. " Designated Eating Area" signs have been posted throughout the warehouse. Contractor personnel j i
have been shown designated eating areas and have been informed that they i must comply with all warehouse regulations. Inspection of both the ware-house and the NSSS storage yard revealed satisfactory conditions.
4 Unresolved Items i
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
- 5. QA Inspection of Structural Concrete Performance (350618)
This inspection was performed to determine that site work is being performed i in accordance with NRC requirements and SAR commitments; that the QA/QC program is functioning in a manner to assure that requirements and commit-ments are met; and that prompt and effective action is taken to achieve permanent corrective action on significant discrepancies.- For concrete i placement No A-098-005B, The Fuel Handling Building Cask Loading Pit, the following areas were examined to verify the, inspection objectives.
- a. Field Drawings, Specifications, and Procedures Bechtel Drwg No. AX2009A005, R7 Bechtel Drwg No. AX2009A006, R8 Bechtel Drwg No. AX2094V019, R18 GPC FCR No. C-FCRB-2676 GPC FCR No. C-FCRB-2578
- GPC FCR No. C-FCRB-2668
, Bechtel DCN No. 4 to Drwg No. AP098036, R3 i
Specification X2AP01, R39, Forming, Placing, Finishing and Curing Concrete Procedure CD-T-02, R9, Concrete Quality Control I The inspector reviewed the above listed documents to determine whether the most recent revisions of field drawings, construction specifica-tions, and procedures are in agreement with the SAR. The listed applicable field change requests (FCRs) and design change actice (DCN) were examined to determine that they had been properly reviewed, approved, and processed. The procedure and specification were examined
! to determine whether they adequately describe inspection and testing-requirements to properly reflect the design intent of the structure.
- b. Field Inspection
[ ihe inspector made a detailed inspection of concrete placement acti-l vities concerning pour No. A-098-005B. The forms were tight and clean with rebar properly installed and clean. Preplacement inspection was
s . , .
3 1
indicated by the signed preinspection form. Placement activities pertaining to delivery time, free fall, flow distance, layer thickness, and consolidation of concrete were adequate. In process sampling of concrete for strength testing, temperature, slump, unit weight, and air content met required frequency requirements. An examination of batch plant operations and batch tickets indicated that the proper mix was being delivered to the placement, that materials were being controlled, and that accurate batch plant records were being generated. Inspection
, of the volumetric dispensers of air entrainment and water reducing
, agents disclosed that the subject dispensers had out-of-date calibra-tion stickers displayed on these items. Pursuing the matter further,
- the inspector was shown documentation indicating that these items had l been calibrated but QC failed to change the stickers. The concreting 4
activities were continuously monitored by adequate numbers of QC l i n s p ec *.o r s . The inspector observed the concrete foreman and craftsmen at work and conducted discussions with randomly selected personnel to determine that their knowledge of concreting activities was adequate.
The inspector attended a critique conducted January 13, 1982, con-cerning the subject placement in which supervision, QC, and engineering personnel participated from both GPC and Walsh Construction Company.
The inspector found this approach helpful in that it aired any problems
- ' encountered during the placement and discussed corrective actions that could be taken to prevent recurrence during later concrete placements.
- c. Quality Control Quality records examined by the inspector pertaining to this placement included batch tickets, batch plant inspector reports, daily inspection reports, concrete pour cards, test data for air, slump, unit weight, and temperature, and molding of concrete test cylinders. Discussions were conducted with various QC inspectors associated with the subject placement to determine that their knowledge of batch plant operations, testing, placing, finishing, and curing concrete were adequate and to determine whether their findings received proper attention.
- d. Nonconforming Items Reports (NCR) l The inspector reviewed selected reports of construction ~ discrepancies
! for various concrete placements to verify that the corrective action accomplished the following:
(1) Corrected the items (2) Determined the cause of the deficiency (3) Considered reportability to NRC
, (4) Instituted effective action to prevent recurrence
_ _ __ _ - _- - _ _ _ ~ . _ _ . . ., .__ _ - , __ _
1 4 i
-Nonconformance and deviation reports reviewed included the following:
CD - 1592 CD 1404 CD - 1565 CD 1395 CD - 1546 CD 1378 ,
CD - 1533 CD 1349 !
CD - 1466 CD 1348 CD - 1436 CD 1340 CD - 1416 i
The QA section periodically conducts reviews of nonconformance reports for all disciplines (such as Audit GD05-81/58) to identify potential trends or areas of concern that may be developing.
- e. Calibration of Equipment The inspector examined the in process concrete testing equipment utilized for this placement and the concrete batch plant scales and equipment for current calibration stickers. Other than the discrepancy discussed in paragraph 5.b which was immediately rectified, all equip-ment examined was found in calibration, t
- f. Audits The inspector reviewed the following audits which had been performed on various phases of concreting operations:
, CD03 - 81/89 QA Audit of Concrete CD03 - 81/74 Concrete CD03 - 81/45 Concrete CD03 - 81/20 Concrete CD03 - 81/19 Concrete Temporary Blockouts
- CD03 - 81/02 Concrete Documents j CD03 - 80/39 Concrete Placement The above audits were examined to determine if they .were meaningful, effective, reflect quality performances, and whether corrective actions taken as a' result of audit findings were proper, timely, and complete.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified. -
l 6. Site QA Audit Personnel Training and Qualifications (35060)
The inspector examined the QA Department Annual Training Raport - 1981 data i package transmitted by memorandum (Correspondence No: -QA-1157) dated 1/9/82 and conducted ' discussions with four relatively new site auditors. Quali-fication records examined anc' the above discussions ascertained that new 1
auditors had been given the appropriate training / orientation and -possessed the necessary experience to perform the QA audit function.
- ... _ ~ _ ~ - - . , -. - . . . , _ - . - . - - . -.--. . . - . . - -
5 As new auditors, they were first employed under the tutelage of a lead auditor performing team inspections until they obtain an acceptable degree of on-the-job experience. They now perform audits on their own but are still subject to the guidance, counseling, and approval o f au.di t plan checklists, audit findings, and audit reports by the QA Site Supervisor, a certified lead auditor.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
- 7. Field Change Notice Controls (927048)
A Field Change Notice (FCN) is a document orginated and approved by field engineering (Assistant Project Section Supervisor or above.) to allow work to proceed with subsequent Bechtel home office design engineering review and concurrence.
A letter from Mr. D. E. Dutton to Mr. D. G. Eisenhut, NRR, dated October 15, 1981, subject, Field Change Notice Controls, delineates controls which have been placed on the initiation, handling, and resolution of FCNs. This let-ter commits QA to a 100 percent audit / review of all FCNs issued during the first six months to verify implementation of controlling procedures, the necessity for FCNs in lieu of Field Change Requests, control of FCNs and the adequacy and timeliness of Bechtel's response. The letter also states that a joint bi-monthly review of all FCNs will be conducted by the managers of QC and Field Operations.
A review was can' ducted of Field Procedure Change Notice 10 to procedure DC-A-03, R8, and Desk Top Procedure DT-C-07, RO, which provide controls over the FCN program. The inspector examined the findings mentioned in OA Audit GD07-81/99 which reviewed all FCNs written as of December 12, 1981. The results of the bi-monthly review conducted December 14, 1981, by the managers of QC and Field Operations which are detailed in a memo-randum to the vault file dated December 16,1981 (File No. X7BC23, X7BF10) were reviewed by the inspector.
It appears that the turn-around time (i.e., the time to get Bechtel's written response to the FCNs) has averaged about ten days whereas GPC committed to no longer than five days. GPC feels this additional time interval for Bechtel response can be attributed to the newness of the . FCN program and will be corrected. The bi-monthly review concluded that for the FCNs written to date, there has been no evidence of abuse of the system.
Within this area, no violations or devations were identified.
d e
L . . . _ . _ - _ , _ , _
I EEQ 7ILICOPT FES 0 91982 Georgia Power Company ATTN: Mr. J. H. Miller, Jr.
Executive Vice President P. O. Box 4545 i Atlanta, GA 30318 l Gentlemen:
Subject:
Report NosQ1-1T1tnd 50-425/81-15 Thank you for your letter of January 28, 1982, informing us of step; you have taken to correct the violation concerning activities under NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-108 add CPPR-109 brought to your attention in our letter of December 28, 1981. We will examine your corrective actions and plans during subsequsnt inspections.
We appreciate your cooperation with us.
Sincerely, hl.
F. J. Long, Acting Chief Reactor Projects Branch 2 Division of Resident and Reactor Project Inspection cc: H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Project Manager E. D. Groover, QA Site Supervisor D. O. Foster, Project General Manager bet: NRC Resident Inspector Document Management Branch State of GA - ,
^J ,
i RI':RRPI JRogge:Is RII:RRPI RII:R / I VBrownlee FJL 2l6 l82 2/ /82 2/ jag D 0 P
g /(- /
- es PKe/hjy Georg:a Power Company Pest Cff:ce Sex 4545 At.anta, Georpa 30302 g Teleonene' 404 522-606
,u VOgtle Project Scutnern Company Services. Inc.
Pest Cffice Sox 2625 Semingnam, Alatama 35202 Tele::none 205 870-6011 January 28, 1982 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Reference:
Office of Inspection and Enforcement ID: II:
Region II - Suite 3100 50-424/81-13 101 Marietta Street 50-425/81-13 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Attention: Mr. Paul J. Kellogg File: X78G10 Log: GN-159 Gentlemen:
The Georgia Power Company wishes to submit the following information concerning the violation discussed in your inspection reports 50-424/81-13 and 50-425/81-13.
We concur with the finding identified concerning failure to control the preservation of equipment. The reason for the finding was failure to follow procedure GD-T-09, " Inspection of Items in Storage and Storage Areas."
The areas of concern identified in the finding have been corrected. The Vogtle Site Quality Assurance group had previously audited the program for the control and inspection of in place stored equipment and identified two findings. These findings have been reaudited and one closed. Plant Vogtle now has an acceptable program for the control and inspection of equipment stored in place. Quality Assurance will continue to monitor this program.
Full compliance was achieved January 14, 1982.
Neither the inspection report nor this reply contains any proprietary infornation and may be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
' cru you rs ,
\\ _
a ~
Doug Du ton Project Executive geuszzoT" E"*
- o. . ~. .
Mr. Paul J. Kellogg 50 J24/81-13, 50-425/81-13 January 28, 1982 Page 2 Doug Dutton states that he is the Project Executive of Georgia Power Company and is authorized to transmit this letter on behalf of Georgia Power Company, and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the facts set forth in this letter are true.
h
, ~ ,.i N
GPC: N v Do 'Dutton '
Sworn to and subscribed .
before me this ## day of January, 1982.
c b N-NN Stateat tage W conms.*a haves Maren 21, tses xc: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Attn: Victor J. Stello, Jr., Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555 J. H. Miller 0. Batum R. J. Kelly D. O. Foster R. E. Conway H. H. Gregory III G. F. Head E. D. Groover D. E. Dutton L. T. Gucwa R. H. Pinson B. L. Lex C. F. Whitmer C. R. Miles, Jr.
D. L. McCrary H. C. Nix R. A. Thomas R. W. Staffa J. A. Bailey J. L. Vota
f tll 0 LA)
DEC 2 81981 Georgia Power Company ATTN: Mr. J. H. Miller, Jr.
Executive Vice President P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 G:ntlemen:
Subject:
Report Nos. 24/81 13 and 50-425/81-13 This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by fir. W. F. Sanders of this office on November 5 - December 11, 1981, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 for the A. W. Vogtle facility.
Our preliminary findings were discussed with fir. H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Project fianager, at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of salective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with p:rsonnel, and observations by the inspector.
During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear to violate NRC requirements. This item and references to pertinent requirements are listed in the Notice of Violation enclosed herewith as Appendix A. Elements to be included in your response are delineated in Appendix A. ,
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written application to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the requirements of 2.790(b)(1).
Tho responses directed by this letter and the enclosures are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of fianagement and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
- Sincerely, W
Paul J. Kellogg, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 2 Division of Resident and Reactor Project Inspection
Enclosures:
(See page 2) e .
DEC 2 81981 Georgia Power Company 2
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix A. Notice of Violation
- 2. Inspection Report Nos. 50-424/81-13 .
and 50-425/81-13 cc w/encls:
H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Project fianager E. D. Groover, QA Site Supervisor D. O. Foster, Project General itanager RIIpRPI 3 RII:RRPI RII:RRPI
.e RII:.
oFRcgge:gr WFSa;nders.ub y '
VI.8rh.In1** -
12/ ,,81 12/ 1/81 12/ n s1 ,
ij,[ygp
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Georgia Power Company Docket Nos. 50-424 & 50-425 A. W. Vogtle 1 & 2 License Nos. CPPR-108 & 109 As a result of the inspection conducted on November 5 - December 11,1981, and in accordance with the Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (October 7,1980),
the following violation was identified.
As required by 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion XIII and implemented by i Georgia Power Company PSAR Section 17, which states in part, " measures shall be established to control the handling, storage, shipping, cleaning and preservation of material and equipment in accordance with work and inspection instructions to prevent damage on deterioration."
Contrary to the above, activities affecting quality were not accomplished in accordance with established procedures in that on December 7,1981 an inspection disclosed that 14 of 22 items of equipment were installed or stored in the unit 1 and 2 auxiliary building without the required protec-tion maintained for the prevention of damage or deterioration.
This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement I).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are hereby required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including: (1) admission or denial of the alleged viola-tion; (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; ano (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Oate: nFc 2 8 1991 iff52220:mo 0:020c '
PDR__ ADOCK 05000424 ,
- #pn Macq#g UNITED STATES
.[,,w j -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 gy . . r REGION 11 o=*t 8 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
'D j8 ATI.ANTA, GEO RGIA 30303 Report Nos. 50-424/81-13 and 50-425/81-13 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta , GA 30302 Facility Name: Alvin Vogtle 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 Inspection at Vogtle Nuclear Station, Waynesboro, GA 3 : .- 3 ,
Inspector: d,,. Y h>Wh N, '- '-
4 F. Sancers, Resident Inspector Date Signed Approved by: b/t W ( /2/23 [P/
Virjir E. Brownlee, Section Chief, Date Signed Division of Resident and Reactor Project -
Inspection SUttttARY Inspection on November 5 - October 11, 1981 Areas Inspected This routine inspection involved 160 inspector-hours on site in the areas of material receiving and storage, piping, welding, maintenance of category 1 equipment, concrete placements and structual steel. Reviewed licensee's actions on previous inspection findings.
Resul ts i
Of the 6 areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified in 5 areas; i 1 violation was found in 1 area (failure to control the preservation of l equipment, paragraph 6). 1 1
CO222UJY1 c20207
^
bPDRADOCK05000g2J
DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contacted
- H. H. Gregory III, Construction Project Manager
- W. T. Nickerson, Manager Generating Plant Construction
- D. O. Foster, Power Generation !bnager
- C. W. Hayes, Project Quality Assurance Manager
- C. R. iiiles, Jr., Quality Assurance Field Supervisor
- E. D. Groover, Quality Assurance Site Supervisor
- tt. H. Googe, flanager Field Operations R. R. Allen, Assistant Construction Project fianager W. Barrett, Quality Assurance Engineer R. E. Folker, Quality Assurance Engineer B. C. Harbin, Civil Project Section Supervisor L. Kinney, Civil Engineering Supervisor S. Kitchens, Supervisor Power Generation R. W. Mc!1 anus, itanager of Quality Control S. Persyn, Environmental fianager J. Petro, Quality Assurance Engineer C. Sarver, Quality Assurance Engineer F. Shoemake, Quality Assurance Engineer T. Wilkes, Manager of Receiving and Material Storage Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, quality control inspectors, supervisors, and office personnel.
Other Organizations H. R. Reuter, Resident Engineer - Bechtel Power Company W. G. Uhouse - Resident Engineer (N. Stamp) Bechtel Power Company M. Woronovich, Resident Engineer - Bechtel Power Company W. L. Fry, General Superintendent - Walsh Construction Company J. Duffy, Project Manager - Walsh Construction Company G. Ryan, QA/QC Coordinator, Walsh Construction Company
- Attended exit interview
- 2. Exit interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on December 9,1981 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1. The inspector also attended the exit interview of J. Harris on November 6,1981.
- 3. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) IFI (50-424/80-06-01 and 50-425/80-06-01). An inspection was made ;
of the corrective actions relative to the control of general erosion and l run-off problems at the spoil storage area and the localized erosion at the l 1
4 l
base of the category 1 back fill stockpile. It was noted that the spoil storage area had been graded, mulched, seeded and a stable base of sod established, it was also noted that a heavy sod base had been established at the base of the category 1 stockpile. The inspector was informed that the stockpile had been reduced approximately 50% and reshaped. fio run-off problems were apparent.
(Closed) IFI (50-424/80-06-02 and 50-425/80-06-02). The inspector reviewed the licensee's documentations for resolution of the high PH factors found in the fio.1 effluent pond adjacent to the concrete batch plant. The resolu-tion is based on permission from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division to take the ph and turbidity water samples from the fio. 2 effluent pond which receives the run-off from the fio.1 pond after it settles. The water that enters the environment outside of the plant is discharged from the fio. 2 pond.
- 4. Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
- 5. Plant Tours During this repurt period, inspection tours were periodically made through various sections of the facility. The inspections included such areas as the reactor containments, auxiliary building, material receiving and storage, material laydown area, installation of equipment and piping.
During the tours the inspector examined work for obvious defects or noncompliance with regulatory requirements or license conditions.
Particular note was taken of the presence of quality control inspectors and quality control evidence such as inspection records, material identifi-ca tion , nonconforming material identification, housekeeping and equipment preservation. The inspector interviewed craft personnel, supervision, quality control inspectors as such people were available in the work areas.
One item of noncompliance was identified and is discussed in paragraph 6.
- 6. Equipment Installed or Stored in Place An inspection performed on 22 items of category 1, equipment that were either installed or stored in place revealed that 14 of the items did not have the required protection maintained to preclude damage or deterioration on the following items:
. Containment Spray Pump 206-PG-002 - Heat indicating light not lit or evidence that the motor heater were energized.
. Chemical and Volume Charging Pump 1208-P6-003-l101 - Opening in one of the pipes not capped or taped.
. Component Cooling Water Pump 1217-P4-001-M01 - No heat- indicator light, equipment in wet environment.
i
3
. Boron Injection Pump 1208-P6-001 - Opening uncovered also no heat indicating light bulb.
. ,CVCS Charging Pump 1208-P6-001 - Metal reinforced hydraulic hose was collapsed with severe kink.
, . Containment Spray Pump 1206-P6-001 - No heat indicating light, also vent pipe on top of pump open.
. Residual Heat Removal Pump 1205-A6-002 - Heater wires pulled out of motor connection leaving the indicator light burning and not energizing the heaters.
RHR Encapsalation Vessel 1205-V4-001 - Partially covered and vessel partially exposed resulting in flange bolts rusting, arc or burning spatter on side of Stainless Steel Vessel, also nozzle open.
. Containment Spray Encapsulation-2-1206-V4-000-nozzle open.
. Pipe Spool 1205-004-S Uncapped opening
. Pipe Spool 1206-005-S Connections open (3)
Limi torque Motor Operated Valve 1205-A6-002 - Heater indicator light not lit.
Hydrogen Recombiner - GBE/GBR ECA No provision to prevent freezing (manufacturer precautions against freezing due to possible distilled water in instrumentation).
Containment Spray Pump 1206-P6-001 - No heat indicating light lit or evidence that heaters were energized.
" ~ - ~~~ ~ ' ' - ' ~ ~ - -
1 APR 2 7 ISn llO Georgia Power Company ATTN: Mr. R. J. Kelly Executive Vice Presicent P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 3C302 i
Gentlemen:
Subject:
Report Nos.6a24/S_2_-07 and 50-425/82-07 This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. W. F. Sanders of this office on March 11,1982 - April 10,1982 of activities authori:ed by NRC Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 for the A. W. Vogtle facility and 4
, to the discussion of our findings held with H. H. Gregory, Construction ' Project i
Manager, at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the
- enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
We have examined actions you have taken with regard to previously reported unresolved items. The status of these items is discussed in the enclosed inspection report.
One new unresolved item resulted from this inspection and is disci.ssed in the enclosed report. This item will be examined during subsequent inspe,:tions.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter a",a the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written acolication to withhold information contained therein witnin thirty days of the
- cate of nis letter. Such application must be consistent with the requirements 1
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss i them with you.
Sincerely,
- //
H. C. Dance, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 2 Division of Project and Resident Programs
! Enclosure (See page 2) i
'^U^ 2:'
7)9 M
(
N"V""xg) .j
"" / /A
~
q l
l Georgfa Power Company 2 APFt ; 7 1932 !
Enclosure:
Inspection Report Nos. 50-424/S2-07 and 50-425/S2-07 cc w/ encl:
H. H. Gregory III, Construction Project Manager E. 0. Groover, QA Site Superv_isor D. O. Foster, Project General Manager bec w/ enc 1:
NRC Resident Inspector Document Management Branch License Fee Management Branch State of Georgia ,
RII RII RII RII Pf f WSandersige JR'ogge VB ro~wnl ee .h ance 4/ /82 4/, /82 4A1/82 4/$o,82 e
treg
<,- , jq . UNITED STATES 8 , ^Qr, .ge NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION ll gb
(
- 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100 g% [*Dg[ o ATLANTA, G EORGIA 30303 M 7G C71T Report Ns. 50-424/82-07 and 50-425/82-07 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Facility Name: Alvin Vogtle 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 Inspection at Vogtle tuclear Station Waynesboro, Georgia Inspector: / I e**e
,/'
V/7/MZ.
WfF. Sanders ,
g' ' Date Signed Approved by: .
V. L. Brownlee, Section Chief, Division of Date Signed Project ana Resident Programs
SUMMARY
Inspection on March 11 - April 10,1982 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection involved 164 inspector-hours on site in the areas of piping installation, containment erection, concrete pouring, structual steel installation, and electrical record review.
Resul ts Of the six areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
I
, L- D ,
QN
DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Project Manager it. H. Googe, Manager of Field Operations L. N. Brooks, Civil Engineer W. R. Evans, Project Section Supervisor-Mechanical E. D. Groover, QA Site Supervisor B. C. Harbin, Project Section Supervisor - Civil C. W. Hayes, Project QA Manager R. W. ficManus, Manager of Quality Control J. C. Payson, Field Engineer, liechanical C. E. Rand, Jr. , Assistant Construction Project fianager J. E. Sanders, Project Section Supervisor Other Organization Bechtel Power Corporation H. R. Reuter - Resident Engineer
- 2. Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on April 8,1982 with those persons in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected, observations made, and discussed in details the inspection findings listed below. No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item - 424/82-07-01: "Hydrotest of Imbedded Pipe" paragraph 4.
- 3. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item 424/82-06-02: "Di screpancies in N.D.E require-ments." This item was related to the N.D.E requirements for the primary shield structure sub assemblies *, hat were shop fabricated with a requirement for magnetic particle examination of all welds per Bechtel specification X2AG05 whereas the welds made in the field to join the sub assemblies required a visual examination per specification X2AP01. The rasolution is based on a letter of thrch 18, 1982 from Bechtel Project Engineering which reaffinns the design and the adequacy of the less stringent inspection requirement of the specification as stated: The primary shield liner plate systems does not see cyclic operating loads as do the NSSS support imbeds; l therefore, fatique is not a primary design consideration. The liner plate j system is adequately designed, however to withstand LOCA pressure."
. .o .
2
- 4. Hydrotest of Imbedded Pipe A review of the requirements for the pressure test of pipe prior to the imbeddment in a concrete structure show a difference in the test requirements betweem ASME section II and ACI 318-6.3.2.4. Specifically ASME III requires that a minimum hydrostatic test pressure of 1.25 times the system design pressure be applied and held for a minimum of 10 minutes, whereas ACI 318 states "all piping and fittings shall be tested as a unit i
for leaks immediately prior to concreting. The testing pressure shall be 50 percent in excess of the pressure to which the piping and fittings may be subjected, but the minimum testing pressure shall not be less than 150 psi above atmospheric pressure. The pressure test shall be held for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> with no drop in pressure. This has been discussed with the licensee when it became apparent during the pressure tests of welds in the spent fuel cooling
, and purification system 1-1213. This is considered unresolved pending further information and evaluation. (424/82-07-01)
- 5. Plant Tours Site inspections throughout this reporting period were periodically made of the power block and other sections of the facility to inspect the work in progress for obvious defects or non compliance with applicable codes, regulatory requirements and licensee conditions. Particular note was made of the presence of quality control inspectors and quality control evidence such as inspection records, material identification, nonconforming material identification, material protecticn and housekeeping. The inspector interviewed craft personnel, supervision, quality control inspectors as such people were available in the work area. The facility inspections included unit 1 and unit 2 primary containment construction sites, auxiliary building, control building, fuel handling building at all levels, primary containment dome fabrication area, material storage and laydown areas, river intake structures and the Category 1 backfill and compaction activities.
Specific observation included optical inspection to measure radial dimen-sions of the polar crane supports in the No. I containment, Construction of new access opening in No.1 containment, installation of vertical structed ,
stab in No.1 primary containment, observation of hydro test activities on the spent fuel cooling and purification system. Within the areas examined no violations were identified.
- 6. Non Conformance Report (NCR)
An inspection was made of nonconformance records related to electrical equipment and installation e required by Vogtle Quality Assurance Manual, section 15. This was done by randomly selecting 18 NCR's and reviewing them for clarity in describing the condition, required references to the specification on procurement and installation requirements, disposition recommendation, corrective actions, and required approvals. No items of non-compliance were identified.
3
- 7. Unresolved Items taresolved Items are matters about which more information .is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, Items of non_
compliance, unresolved item disclosed during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 4. ,
7 k
I
\
1
- , - - ~ , , - - . - . , . - _ , , _ . , . - , . - , - , - . , , , _ _ _ , . , . , - . , . ,,,,-y-, e,.,. , - ., , , ,. . -y --.7
. w
.. .s . , vi AUG 2 .1992 Georgia Power Company ATIN: Mr. R. J. Kelly gg Executive Vice President P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Gentlemen:
Subject:
ReportNos.h424/82-38and50-425/82-18 This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. W. F. Sanders of this office on June 11 - July 10,1982, cf activities authorized by NRC Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 for the A. W. Vogtle facility and to the discussion of our findings held with Mr. H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Manager, at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations or deviations were disclosed.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written appli-cation to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.790(b)(1).
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
/s/
H. C. Dance, Chief Reactor Project Branch 2 Division of Project and Resident Programs
Enclosure:
Inspection Report Nos. 50-424/82-18 and 50-U.5/82-18 cc's (Ses- page 2) g
' s n- / ,3G pef q
ADOCK 05000g l
e ..
k - _, . _ . - - _ __
.e
_3 - .
AUG 2 1982 Georgia Power Company 2 cc w/ encl:
H.'H. Gregory, III, Construction Project Manager E. D. Groover, QA Site Supervisor D. O. Foster, Project General Manager M. Manry, Plant Manager
-bcc w/ encl:
NRC Resident Inspector Document Management Branch State of Georgia 1
s i
i L
l dj yz j(s) Id Wsanders:drt JRtgge VBrownlee HCDance 7h /82 7/7/82 7/g/82 7/../82 1
.- . , , -._,-4 - . _ . - . , . . . . , - , , . y, . - - - , . .- _ -. . - , , . .,..,,--n- ., ,
, o D Y2003 Report Nos. 50-424/82-18 and 50-425/82-18 Licensee: ' Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Facility Name: Alvin Vogtle 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 Inspection at Vogtle Nuclear Station site near Waynesboro, Georgia Inspector: ,
mN ,
7/x~ i/9 c.
WfF. Sanders, Senior Repdefit Ipector Dste Signeo Approved by: 4Md A, V. Breknlee, Section Chief, Division of
&!L[fl._
D&te' Signeo Project and Resident Programs
SUMMARY
Inspection on June 11 - July 10,1982 Areas Inspected This routine announced inspection involved 96 resident inspector-hours on site in the areas of containment fabrication, concrete forms and preparation, stainless pipe welds, and rebar installation.
Results Of the four areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
n
DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Project Manager
- M. H. Gouge, Acting Construction Manager
- E. D. Groover, Site QA Manager
- R. W. McManus, Site Quality Control Manager
- C. W. Hayes, Project Quality Assurance Manager C. R. Miles, Jr., Quality Assurance Field Supervisor H. W. Swain, Quality Control Supervisor F. A. Shoemake, Quality Assurance Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included technicians, quality control
-inspectors, supervisors, and office personnel.
- Denotes personnel attending exit interview.
- Denotes contact by telephone
- 2. Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on July 12, 1982 with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
- 3. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
- 4. Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
- 5. General Periodic inspections were made throughout this reporting period in the form of general type inspections for different areas of both facilities. The different areas were selected on the basis of the ongoing activities scheduled and varied daily to provide wide coverage. Observations were made of the activities in progress to note obvious defective items or items of noncompliance with the required codes and regulatory requirements. On these inspections, particular note was made of the presence of quality control inspectors, supervisors, and quality control evidence such as available process sheets, drawings, material identification, material ;
protection, performance of tests, housekeeping, etc. '
Interviews were also made with craft personnel, supervisors, coordinators, quality control inspectors, and others as they were available in the work
. 3 l
1 2 l areas. With regard to this inspection, some of the specific areas inspected are described as follows:
Unit 1 primary containment work in progress on the exterior shell wall to elevation 324'-3" for pour 1-010-017. Observations were made of the setting of the concrete forms, securing of rebar, installation of tendon sleeves per VPM-CD-T-20, Rev. 2 and VPM-CD-T-06, Rev. 4 Unit 2 primary containment work in progress in the form of rebar and tendon sleeve assembly on the outside and rebar installation on the primary and secondary shield walls on the inside per VPM-CD-T-06, Rev 4.
I Unit 1 and 2 field storage of stainless pipe spools pieces was inspected to observe the activities relative to reinspection and reconditioning of welds. This was reported as a potential 50-55E item j based on slag and porosity on the edges of the welds on several spools l and prompted further field inspections and work to determine the extent l and resolve the problems.
. Control building installation of concrete forms Fuel handling building, observation of inspections in progress by electrical and civils quality co'ntrol inspectors and the use of applicable drawings and equipment.
- 6. Meetings with Local Officials During this report period, three meetings were held in the area, two of the meetings were with local officials of communities adjacent to the Vogtle site and the third meeting with .the power generation group at the plant.
The first meeting was held in the Waynesboro city council chambers on June 28'with the mayor and city council members. The second meeting was held the following night June 29 with the mayor and councilmen of Sardis, the mayor and councilmen of Girard and the county commissioners of Burke County. All of the meetings were attended by the following representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
R. C. Lewis, Director, Division of Projects and Resident Programs (DPRP)
H. C. Dance, Branch Chief, (DPRP)
V. L. Brownlee, Section Chief, (DPRP)
W. F. Sanders, Sr. Resident Inspector (DPRP)
The meetings'were requested with the local officials by NRC to describe the mission and functional organization of NRC and its relationship to the con., uni ty . The meetings also provided the opportunity to describe the resiaent inspector program and introduce the senior resident inspector for the V(,gtle facility.
4
- , e 3
The following meeting cutline was used:
. Introduction and purpose of meeting
. Presentation of the NRC role and organization
. Vogtle 'nspection Program Discuss direct lines of communications between NRC and local officials.
. Provide a forum to discuss the status of the facility, related community concerns, and any other questions relative to Vogtle facility or NRC.
The meetings were considered by the participants to be meaningful and
~
worthwhile.
- 7. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operation (INP0) Evaluation The results of the pilot inspection and evaluation performed by INPO at the Vogtle facility, Southern Services office in Birmingham Alabama, Vogtle project office in Atlanta Georgia, and Bechtel Power Corporation in Downey California for the period of May 3 to May 21, 1982, has been submitted to Georgia Power Company. A representative of the licensee made a presentation to Region II personnel and the resident inspector. The representative gave a brief summary of the INPO observations and recommendations and how the Georgia Power organization is established to resolve these. Specific note was made and questions asked,to varify that all items of safety significance would be incorporated into the Vogtle Quality Assurance System for corrective action.
No items of non compliance were identified.
- 8. Back Shift Inspections During this report period two back shift inspections were made on "B" shift and one inspection on "D" shift observations were made of the ongoing activities in the primary containment buildings, control buildings and fuel handling buildings. Specific attention was given to the presence of quality control inspectors and supervision.
No items of non compliance were identified, s
O 9 - w f
pp-1.~
/,
v NG0 4 1982 TEM ?ILE COPY i Georgia' Power Company i ATTN: Mr. R. J. Kelly Executive-Vice President P.O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection Reoort Nos % -414/82-11__amd 50-425/82-11 Thank you for your letter of July 28, 1982, informing us of steps you have
, taken to correct the violations concerning activities under NRC Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 brought to your attention in our letter of June 22, 1982. We will examine your corrective actions and plans during subsequent inspections.
We aopreciate your cooperation with us.
Sincerely, R. C. Lewis,-Director Division of Project and Resident Programs cc: H. H. Gregory, III Construction Project Manager E. D. Groover, QA Site Supervisor D. O. Foster, Project General Manager Max Manry, Plant Manager bcc: NRC Resident Inspector Document Management Branch State of Georgia RII:P ,j h RII g RgPRP RII:.
JRog"ge:dm V8rownlee HItah p' RC ' ' s 8/ ,/82 8/J/82 8/f/2 8 /82
- 0Giovall 82080P 9 G.DR ADOCK 05000424 ano C '" ~ '
Georgia Power Company Post Cffice Box 4545 Attenta, Georgia 30302
'** " "* ' ' 2 "
e!13 e Vogtie Project
~
Soutnem Company Sonnees. Inc.
Post Sffice Box 2625 Brmingnam. Alacama 35202 g g _.
Teoon no 205 87mu July 28, 1982 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region II - Suite 3100 101 Marietta Street File: X78G10 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Log: GN-183
Reference:
ID: II:
50-424/82-11 50-425/82-11 Attention: F. J. Long Gentlemen:
The Georgia Power Company wishes to submit the following infonnation concerning the violations discussed in your inspection report 50-424/82-11 and 5C-425/82-11.
We concur with the finding identified concerning failure to control
'the storage and preservation of material. The reason for the violation was failure to properly follow procedures in storing the piping assemblies.
The affected pipe spools have been stored correctly. Contractors have been directed to use more care in the storage of pipe spools. The contractor will be more selective in requisitioning pipe spools in order to reduce the amount of storage required. The contractor will be more selective in choosing spool storage areas and will assign addit.ional personnel to monitor the storage.
Full compliance was achieved on May 11, 1982.
We concur with the finding identified concerning failure to have survey procedures. The reason for the violation was the survey procedures that existed were deleted because experience indicated that normal survey practice was adequate to ensure quality work.
A new field procedure to control survey activities was approved on July 25, 1982. Our ongoing training program on procedure requirements and audit program on procedure implementation should prevent reoccurrence of further violations.
Full compliance should be achieved by August 13, 1982.
esne , Ang4 m.-
9DR Q
ADOCK 05000424 ppR
, i 56-54 hil;50-4 '82-11 July 28, 1982 Page 2 This response contains no proprietary information and may be placed in the NRC Public Document Room upon receipt.
Yours truly,
,i
. "0. Fos ter Project General Manager DOF/CWH/tlp xc: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Victor J. Stello, Jr. , Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
!!ashington, D. C. 20555 R. J. Kelly R. E. conway G. F. Head J. T. Beckham, Jr.
J. H. Boykin D. E. Dutton R. H. Pinson D. L. McCrary R. A. Thomas J. A. Bailey O. Batum H. H. Gregory, III E. D. Groover L. T. Gucwa M. Malcom C. R. Miles , Jr.
M. Manry P. D. Rice R. W. Sta##a J. L. Vota W. F. Sanders - Resident Inspector
I
~JUN 2 2 1382 Georgia Power Company CT ATTN: Mr. R. J. Kelly Executive Vice President P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Report Nos. Q 24/82-11'end 50-425/82-11 ,
This refers to the routine safety inspection _ conducted by Mr. W. F. Sanders of this office on April 10 - May 10, 1982, of activities authorized by NRC Construction-Permit Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 for the A. W. Vogtle facility.
Our preliminary findings were discussed with Mr. H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Project Manager, at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection and oc findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures ~and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear to violate NRC requirements. These items and references to pertinent requirements are listed in the Notice of Violation enclosed herewith as Appendix A. Elements to be included in your response are delineated in Appendix A.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by ,
telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written appli-cation to withhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the requirements of 2.790(b)(1). l' The responses directed by this letter and the enclosures are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
-Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
$l R.C. Lewis, Director Division of Projects and Resident Programs
Enclosure:
'(See page 2)
auN 221982 Georgia'. Power Company 2 Enclosu
- 1. Ap- \ Notice of Violation
- 2. I' ' anet Nos. 50-424/82-11 cc w/ encl:
H. H. Gregory. III, Construction .
Project Manager E. D. Groover. 0A Site Supervisor
- 0. O. Foster. Project General Manager
- M. Manry, Plant Manager bcc w/enci:
NRC Resident Inspector -
Occument Management Branch State of Georgia RI RII RII RII
^J '
V A oynl ee V[5r' W.
WS noers:dt ogge HCDanc}e f/ Q/82 f/g/82 l]) /82 f/,i/82 N. m -- w
.' i APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Georgia Power Company Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 A. W. Vogtle 1 and 2 License Nos. CPPR-108 & CPPR-109 As a result of the inspection conducted on April 10 - May 10,1982, and in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy, 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982), the following violations were identified.
A. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, as implemented by Georgia Power Company P.S.A.R. Section 17, requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Contrary to the above, Pullman Section XIII-5' and Bechtel X4A201 procedures for the control of storage of material were not fully implemented in that 29 stainless pipe spool pieces were in a storage area not supported by dunnage and in contact with the ground.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement II.). A similar violation was brought to your attention in our letter dated May 13, 1981.
B. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, as implemented by Georgia Power Company P.S.A.R Section 17, requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures or drawings.
Contrary to the above, the survey group was performing final inspections for acceptance of tendon locations, equipment verticality and orientation, location of imbeds and penetrations, wall alignments, location and setting of equipment, circularity and diametral inspection of the reactor building containment liner without documented instructions or procedures.
This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement II.).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are hereby reouired to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including: (1) admission or denial of the alleged viola-tions; (2) the reasons for the violations if admitted; (3) the corrective steps a which have been taken and the results achieved; (4) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
i
! i Cate:
PDR 0 ADOCK 05000424 ano
d'pn WessDo
' UNITED STATES
!)\^ gg
- - c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 11 2 f
)! 101 MARIETTA ST N.W., SUITE 3100
- %/ ATLANTA, G EORGIA 30303
.....j i
Report Nos. 50-424/82-11 and 50-425/82-11 " C NT Licensee: Georgia Power Company P.-0. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Facility Name: Alvin Vogtle 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos. CPPR-108'and CPPR-109 Inspection at Vogtle 'uclear Station site near Waynesboro, Georgia Inspector: / % .I, 4//5 d;-
V F. nc;ers ',// f(/ Date Signed Approved by: b du b V. L. Brownlee, Sectionr' Chief, Division of G 'l t [8'4.
Date Signec Project and Resident Programs
SUMMARY
Inspection on April 10 - May 10,1982 Areas Inspected This routine, announced inspection irnivec 17 m inspe: c rs on site in tr.e areas of instal k -ion of concrete for s, cor= - placer . ,spection
, of pfeing, dimensional ; + spections, ir:taliation an: ; cation r cen and j review of licensee's action on previcut ins;:ection f :ings.
l Results Of the six arras mspected. /Tceticos or cc 4 c m &- ~d in "
areas; two v1c ~ iticns wer< ~
- wo areas :
o' >
du rr.::
relative to tne storage a- servation of a 1 21 - :1 Ign; ' ailure i have instructicns or prccecur s for the surve soup - n x~n :;.
$PDH 31AorsCKW M05000424 osc h G pop t -
t DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Project Manager D. O. Foster, Project General Manager W. T. Nickerson, Manager Generating Plant Construction J. A. Bailey, Licensing Project Manager B. Bolander, Supervisor Survey
- W. R. Evans, Project Section Supervisor
- M. H. Googe, Assistant Construction Project Manager
- E. D. Groover, QA Site Supervisor
- C. W. Hayes, Project QA Manager P. Herman, Generic Licensing Engineer
- R. W. McManus, Manager of Quality Control
- C. R. Miles, Jr. , QA Field Supervisor S. C. Persyn, Environmental Manager Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, technicians and office personnel. -
Other Organizations
- H. R. Reuter, Resident Engineer, Bechtel Power Company Corporation (BPC)
- 5. Hayter, Engineer, Bechtel Power Corporation (BPC)
J. P. Runyan, QA Manager, Pullman Power Products
- Attended exit interview
- 2. Exit Intercew The inspection scope and findings were summarized on May 11, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below.
'Open) ~iiolation a24, 425/82-11-01: " failure to control the storage and preservation of material."
(0 pen) Violation - 424, aI5/82-11-02: " Activities affecting quality were not prescribed in documented procedures."
- 3. Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not inspected.
2 4 Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
- 5. General Inspections were made periodically throughout this reporting period in the form of a walk-through inspection in different sections of the facility to observe activities in progress for obvious defective items or noncompliance with the required codes and regulatory requirements. On these inspections, particular note was made of the presence of quality control inspectors, supervisors and quality control evidence such as available process sheets, drawings, material identification, material protection, performance of tests, housekeeping, etc. Interviews are also made with craft personnel, supervision, coordinators, quality control inspectors and others as they are available in the work areas.
Within the areas examined, no items of noncompliance were identified.
- 6. Specific Areas Inspected Unit 1 and Unit 2 containment structures.
. Unit 1 and Unit 2 setting of concrete forms. '
Observation of activities in the Unit 1 and Unit 2 auxiliary building.
Fuel handling building on all levels.
. Observation of the backfill compaction.
Other areas inspected include a site inspection subsequent to the major rain storm on the 21st of April. This was a follow-up to a previous envirSnmental inspection and the findings identified as 80-06-01 and 80-06-02. This inspection included batch plant and No. 2 run off pond.
. Actual erosion and run off control on the perimeter base of the category 1 back fill stock pile.
Material laydown and storage areas and material protection.
River intake structure and run off control at the river. The conditions observed here were subsequently discussed with the site Environmental Manager.
Observed general water conditions at the power block and the general drainage systems.
Within the areas examined, no items of noncompliance were identified.
l l
. 1 3
i
- 7. Plexiglass Concrete Forms New type concrete forms, consisting of plexiglass on one side are being used for walls that are l' wide. This provides direct visibility on one side to observe the concrete placement and vibrating results in the tight areas between rebar, imbedments, and other obstructions. This has enabled the contractor to increase the wall place. ment from 6' to 12' high. During this report period the inspector made several inspections on the setting of these forms on wall A-11-A-034. In addition, visual inspections were made of walls A-11-A-035, 025, 026 which had been completed by utilizing these types of forms. No significant surface defects were observed.
- 8. Fuel Pool Concrete Placement '
' Several inspections were made throughout the setting of the forms for the placement of concrete in walls A-09A-011 A, A-09A-011 B, A-09A-011 C, and A-09A-011 D.
These are located in the fuel handling building. Periodic inspections were made of pipe and electrical imbedments, cleanliness and general pour preparations. The inspector observed the set-up to optically inspect the straightness and verticality of the west wall of the building. Within the areas examined no items of noncompliance were identified.
- 9. Inspection Procedures 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion V, requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescibed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Contrary to these requirements, final inspections for acceptance of completed 1
work were being made without written instructions or procedures. These inspections by the survey group involved acceptance of tendon locations, equipment verticality and oriertation, location of imbeds and penetrations, wall alignments, location and setting of equipment, circularity and diametral inspection of the reactor building containment lines.
This is a violation (50-424, 425/82-11 Failure to have procedures -
Inspection Survey Group Final Inspection.
4
- 10. Handling, Storage and Shipping 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion V, requires that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures or drawings.
Pullman Section XIII-5 and Bechtel X4AZ01 procedures require thet stain-less pipe be stored off the ground. Contrary to this requirement, on May 10, 1982, the inspector observed 29 pieces of stainless pipe spools on
i .
4 the ground in the storage area on the entrance hill to the power block.
Persons in the yard started immediate action to correct the problem. The inspector informed the Pullman QA/QC Manager who stated that he would take additional action to preclude recurrence.
- This is a Violation (50-424, 425/82-11-01-Failure to follow procedures -
material storage).
- 11. INP0 Evaluation i The evaluation of the Vogtle project, which has been selected for the pilot program by INP0 was initiated on May 3,1982, and is to be concluded in 3
- weeks on May 21, 1982. The evaluation is being performed on site by an initial compliment of 28 people who are evaluating the following areas
. Organization & Administration
. Construction Control
. Design Control
. Project Support, Training of Project Documentation
. Procurement Control
. Site Q. A. Operation and Audit result i
. Procurement Organization Controls
. Site Power Supply d
In addition to the above items, which are not all inclusive, part of the team evaluated design control interfaces at Southern Services Company in Birmingham, Georgia Power Corporate in Atlanta, and Bechtel Power Company in
' Los Angeles. The inspector was informed that a formal report with recom-mendations would be submitted to Georgia Power Corporate headquarters.
i 1
l 4
,s ..
August 20, 1982 i
YHilt"7ILE 00FT Georgia Power Company ATTN: Mr, R. J. Kelly Executive Vice Presicent P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Gentlemen:
4 Suoject: Report Nos. 50-424/82-13 and 50-425/82-13 1 Thank you for your letter of August 11, 1982, informing us of steps you nave I
taken to correct tne violation concerning activities under NRC Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 brougnt to your attention in our letter of July 12, 1982. We will examine your corrective actions and plans during suose-
. ouent inspections.
i We accreciate your cooperation with us.
Sincerely, (original signed by RClewis)
R. C. Lewi s ,. Director Division of Project and Resident Programs
- cc
- H. H. Gregory III, Construction Project Manager E. D. Groover. 0A Site Supervisor D. O. Foster, Project General Manager v Manry, Plant Manager occ: NRC Resicent Inscector
, Occument Management Brancn
. State of Georgia i
I
?
. *. g) ;
RII R rip '/j/ 0" RII P'1 AGDeboage:ht v. Upright ARHerdt shinski JRogge RClewis 3//y/82 8/ /82 3/ /82 .</ /S2 S/ /82 3/j 32 m, _ =,cnn PDR AD Cd' 05000424 TGot :
. i l
Georgia Power Company l Post Office Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 b reieonone a 522-80s Vogtle Project southem Company senness. Inc. ,
~
Pest Cffice Box 2625 Sirmingham, Alacama 35202 Teleonone 205 870-6011 August 11, 1982 United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region II - Suite 3100 101 Marietta Street File: X78G10 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Log: GN-188
Reference:
50-424/82-13 50-425/82-13
- Attention
- R. C. Lewis Gentlemen:
The Georgia Power Company wishes to submit the following information concerning the violations discussed in your inspection report 50-424/82-13 and 50-425/G2-13.
We concur with the finding identified concerning failure to take i
effective corrective action. The reason for the violation was ineffective controls because we were in the process of implementing a new housekeeping procedure.
Contractor craftsmen have been assigned to perform a daily inspection of the chemical and volume control system (CVCS) charging pumps for com-pliance to storage requirements. In addition, to better control access to the rooms containing these pumps, the Unit 2 rooms will be locked until piping installation starts and the Unit I rooms will be locked after work in this area is complete.
i The new housekeeping procedure has been fully implemented and requires Quality Control inspectors to inspect storage areas at least monthly to verify:
- 1) area cleanliness and access control,
- 2) condition of coatings and preservatives,
- 3) protective covers and seals maintained,
- 4) identification and markings, and
- 5) inspection for physical damage.
In addition to the above, weekly and spot / random walk-throughs will help avoid future violations in this area.
N YkD0bk0$bobb4 0 PDR
- R. C. Lewis
. '. 50-424/82-13; 50-4. 82-13 August 11, 1982 Page 2 Full compliance was achieved on June 1, 1982.
This response contains no proprietary infomation and may be placed in the NRC Public Document Room upon receipt.
1 Yours truly D. O. Foster Project General Manager D0F/CWH/tlp xc: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Victor J. Stello, Jr. , Director
! Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, D.C. 20555 R. J. Kelly R. E. Conway G. F. Head J. T. Beckham, Jr.
J. H. Boykin O. E. Dutton R. H. Pinson D. L. McCrary R. A. Thomas J. A. Bailey O. Batum H. H. Gregory, III E. D. Groover L. T. Gucwa M. Malcom i
C. R. Miles, Jr.
M. Manry i '
P. D. Rice R. W. Staffa J. L. Vota
- W. F. Sanders ,
t
=w I
July 12, 1982 i
l_ Georgia Power Company
- ATTN
- Mr. R. J. Kelly n r y7 G "'
Executive Vice Presicent l C. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 Gentlemen:
1
Subject:
Report Nos. 52-$1and50-425/82-13 J
t his refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. R. W. Wright c.nd others of this office on May 24-28, 1982, of
- Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 foractivities authorized by NRC the Vogtle facility.
i Our j
prel imina ry findings were discussea with Mr. H. H Gregory, III, Construction Project Manager, at the conclusion of the inspection, i
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, tne intr ectino consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors.
During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear to violate NRC requirements. This item and references to pertinent recuirements Appendix A. are listed in the Notice of Violation enclosed herewitn as Appendix A. Elements to be included in your response are delineated in We nave examined actions you have taken with regard to previously reported unresolvec items. The status of these items is discussed in the enclosed report.
' In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will i
be olaced in the NRC's Public Occument Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, witnin ten days of the cate of this letter and submit written appli-of thistoletter.
cation witnhold information contained therein within thirty days of the date Such application must 2.790(b)(1). be consistent with the recuirements of The responses directed by this letter and the enclosures are not subject to tne clearance procedures of the Office of Management anc Budget as required by the Pacerwork Recuction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
h G
DO ObbN4 PDR
July 12, 1982 Georgia Power Company 2
.I i
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to ciscuss i them with you.
i Sincerely.
t (Orginal signed by H. C. Dance for)
{ R. C. Lewis Director
- Division of Project and j Resident Programs
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix A, Notice of Violation
- 2. Inspection Report Nos. 50-424/82-13 and 50-425/82-13 i ec w/ encl:
H. H. Gregory. III, Construction Project Manager E. O. Groover, QA Site Supervisor O. O. Foster, Project General Manager
, M. Manry Plant Manager ,
bec w/ enc 1:
NRC Resident Inspector Occument Management Branch State of Georgia i
1 I
I I
RII RII RII RII RII 1% .L' RWright:ht
/, ./bY 2
Upr.i ght '
RII.Y %
- f 0 l*.
t,-
ARHerdt JA01:{shinski JRogge RClewis 07/ /82 07/ g/82 07/o /82 07/ t/82 07/ /82- 07/ 9/82 4
I
. s I
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION 4 .
IIEQ 7IIECOM Georgia Power Company Vogtle 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-424 & 50-425 License Nos. CPPR-108 & CPPR-109 As a result of the inspection conducted on May 24-28, 1982, and in accorcance with the NRC. Enforcement Policy. 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982). the following violation was identified.
10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI and the accepted QA Program (PSAR 5ection 17.1.16) require tnat measures be establisned to assure that condi-tions adverse to quality such as nonconformances are promptly corrected.
Procecure GD-i-09 requires that all equipment at its permanent location snall be made access-controlled to the greatest practical degree. Bechtel document X61H02-85-2. paragraph 2b-4 Storing Pump on Foundation, also recuires sealing protective covers.
Contrary to the above, conditions adverse to quality were not promptly cor-rected. .0uring April 1981. the licensee identified in a QA audit tnat controls were inadequate to maintain the protective cover integrity for the chemical and volume control system (CVCS) charging pump (2-1208-P6-006).
Another QA audit in January 1982 identified that similar in place storage maintenance controls appeared inadequate. Prompt' corrective action was not taken in that the inspector found the condition still existed for this and four other CVCS charging pumps.
This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement II).
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are hereby recuired to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including: (1) admission or denial of the alleged vicia-tion; (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which nave been taken and the results achieved; (4) corrective steps which will De taken to avoic further violations; and (5) the date when full compliance will be acnieved.
cause snown. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good i
i Date: July 12, 1982 r i
1 l
l 1
I
~~-- inmoo non820 PER'd6dCR~05000424' o PDR
- os UNITED STATES 8 , ^e ~j
\ -a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 11 o b l!A #
101 MARIETTA ST., N.W., SUITE 3100
- D
.....p ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
~TE1915 Report Nos. 50-424/82-13 and 50-425/82-13 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302
, Facility Name: Vogtle Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 License Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 Inspection at Vogtle site near Waynesboro, GA Inspectors: 2v 2v. /,b '?!? !g 2.
R. W. Wright / Date Signec hYi1 44' s 7l7lt1 A. G. Debbage ./ Date $1gned
/W/77 //M-<J f 7/7/t* L C. R. McFarland Q6te/ signed Approved by: [/ & 7[7 2_
C. M. Upright, SfctiopfCM ef Dite Signec Engineering IMpectiefi Branch Division of Engineering and Technical Programs
SUMMARY
Inspection on May 24-28, 1982 Areas Inspectec This routine, unannounced inspection involved 99 inspector-hours on site in the areas of QA inspectio.n of ASME piping / welding work performance: OA inspection of electrical / instrumentation work performance; site crocurement, receiving, storage, and maintenance; licensee identified reportable items; and licensee action on previous inspection findings.
~~"716veg/ B20tsev
.W R ADOCK 05000424 o PDR
2 Results.
Of the five areas inspected, n.3 violations or deviations were identifiec in four areas: one violation was found in the storage area (Licensee corrective action not effect.ive on storage of charging pumps paragraph 5.e).
l l
l l
i l
l l
1 I
l t
1 i
I l
l 1
l l l 1
i l
- i l
i REPORT DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contactec Licensee Employees
- H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Project Manager
- E. D. Groover QA Site Supervisor
- A. B. Gallant. Engineering Supervisor - Meenanical
- W. R. Evans, Project Section Supervisor - Mechanical
- 0. R. Sikes, Coordination Supervisor '
J. R. Petro Senior QA Field Representative E. L. Anderson, Senior QA Field Representative D. C. Garner, Senior QA Field Representative i R. E. Folker, QA Engineer W. B. Anderson, QC supervisor - Electrical
. J. R. Ross, QC Supervisor - Electrical R. A. Moye, Engineering Supervisor, Electrical F. L. Deal. Engineering Supervisor, Civil i
R. M. Beaver, Engineering Supervisor, Piping G. A. Burkhalter, QC Supervisor, Mechanical H. T. Wilkes, Construction Warehouse Supervisor W. R. Jones, Senior Buyer i D. V. Adams, Invoice Processing Supervisor C. R. Miles, Jr. , OA Field Supervisor Other licensee employees contacted included numerous construction craf tsmen.
several technicians, QA/QC personnel, mechanical and electrical training specialists, and office personnel.
Other Organizations t
- J. P. Runyan, OA Manager, Pullman Power Products (PPP)
"G. B. Herrington, QA Surveillance, pPP
- W. G. Uhouse, Resident Engineer, Bechte! Power Corcoration (BPC)
K. Hastings. General Foreman, Electrical. Cleveland Electric Compan, e
NRC Resident Inspector W. E. Sanders
- Attenced exit interview
- 2. Exit Interview The insoection scope and findings were summarited on May 28, 1932. witn those persons indicatec in paragraph 1 above. The following new i tems were i.
icentified and discussed at tne exit interview:
t
, , -r - , m,, - - - . . - , ,,,,-4 -. ~. - -- . - - - . - - . . . ,-n . , -, . , , - - . a- - - - -
__ l 2
l
- a. Violation 424.425/82-13-01, Failure to take effective corrective action (paragraph 5.e). i
- b. Inspector Followup Item 424,425/82-13-02, Documentation of noncon-
.formance report review for licensee reportable items (paragraph 7.a).
- c. Inspector Followup Item 424,425/82-13-03, Documentation of audit findings (paragraph 7.d).
The licensee acknowledged the three items above and stated procedural changes would be issued to handle the inspector followup items and that corrective action on the violation had already been initiated. Previously identified unresolved item 424,425/82-05-05, Grout Inspection, was closed as discussed in paragraph 3. ,
- 3. Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters (Closed) Unresolved Item 424.425/82-05-05, Grout Inspection. Rags were found in the grouted pads for the Unit 1 boron injection tank. These rags were used for leak stoppage during grouting operations, not as part of the forms. A concrete post placement inspection (Form dated 12/1/81) was utilized by QC to document an acceptable curing cycle for this grout.
Discussions with responsible licensee personnel revealed they had concluded there was no safety significance attached to the slightly embedded rags.
Examination of the subject pedestal by the inspector revealed that two of the four pedestals had their leak stoppage rags removed and their grouted surface finished. For the other two the inspector pried away at the rags I still existing at the joint between the grout and atop the concrete pedestal surface and found their embedment to be only is" to si". The base plate dimensions are much smaller than the surface area of the grouted pedestal it transmits its load to. There is at least a 4-inch periphery of grouted Decestal not exposed to the primarily perpendicular loading of the pedestal.
Consequently, the slightly emcedded rags have no structural degradation effect on the pedestals. By interoffice memorandum dated 4/19/82 (File No. X78G10) caulking is now being used to seal forms. Also, procecure CD-T-02 has been revised by adding a post placement inspection form to be usec strictly for grout placements.
4 Unreso'ved Items i
Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
- 5. Procurement, Receiving, and Storage (35065)
- a. procedures Reviewed 1 Program requirements ano procedures governing pecct'rement, receiving, and storage control activities were reviewed for completeness and effectiveness. The documents reviewed included the following:
1 3
GD-T-09. R3 Inspection of Items in Storage and Storage Areas i GD-T-14. R1 Receipt Storage and Handling of Welding Materials
- GD-T-17 R0 Housekeecing
! GD-T-01, R8 Nonconformance Control i 'GD-A-24. R4 On-site Procurement Process GD-A-30. R3 Receipt, Receipt Inspection, Storage and Handling MD-A-03, R2 Mechanical Section Field Procurement Procecures D.S.A.R. Sections 17.1. 4, 17.1,7, 17.1. 8, and 17,1,13 l Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
I
- o. Storage of Equipment and Materials I
i All warehouses, storage buildings, and laydown areas were inspected to verify that equipment remaining in storage was retained in the correct level of storage environment. -Specific equipment and material examined in each storage area included electrical penetrations, GE induction motor, detector stacks, nuclear service cooling water pump motors, liquid pulsation damper, reactor vessel internals, magnetrol valves, i
generator gas monitoring system instrumentation, DeLaval Enterprise turoine generators, accumulator tanks, HVAC equipment, electrical-cable, stainless steel fittings, and structural steel.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
1
- c. Procurement and Receiving Inspection Activity The :,upervisors of the civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering units are responsible for initiating site procurement of safety related i
items and construction materials. These are initiated by completion of purenase requisitions, whicn are then reviewed by the site OA unit crior to the requisition being forwarded for conversion to purcnase orders.
The following-recent purchase requisitions were examined to ensure that the technical and quality assurance requirements were specified, that the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 were included when necessary, and that all requisitions had been adequately reviewed and approved in accorcance with established procedures.
Purchase Requisition PAVR-9346T dated 3/9/82 was for 2700 clamps complying with specifications ASTM A575 anc A164; a material certificate of compliance was requirec and the storage level was specified.
i Purcnase reauisition PAVR-9042T dated 12/3/81 was for 200,000 l
linear feet of Unistrut emoed type channel to specification ASTM A570 and A3E6.
. - v- - , .- --n-., . . - - - . .-.- , , - . ,--.,n,,-r-.,n. , , ,
~ ~ - ~
4 i
l I
Purcnase recuisition PAV-8555T dated 9/2/81 was for cuantities of nuts, stucs, springs, cap ends and screws for unistrut channels.
Specifications and certification requirements were included.
Purchase requisition PAVR-7801T dated 2/9/81 was for a supply of nuclear service pipe; soecifications and codes were included and certified material test reports were required. PAVR-7801T resulted in purchase order PAV-5721 dated 5/28/81 which was placed with Consolidated Pipe and Supply Company, Birmingnam, AL.
Subsequent change requests and consequent purchase orcer changes were implementec correctly.
Purchase requisition PAVR-8022T dated 4/3/81 was for structural steel angles and bars to ASTM-A36 specification: this resulted in purchase order PAV-6059 dated 5/5/81 which was placed with O'Neal Steel Inc., Atlanta.
The following receiving Inspection Reports (RIR) were reviewed.
RIR 28354R dated 5/18/82 was for stainless steel fittings to ASME III, Class 1 and 2; the chemical analysis was received with the shipment.
RIR 17696R dated 4/27/82 was for 2" blind flanges; the report recorded that these had been sent to the pipe warehouse af ter inspection.
RIR 13819R dated 11/5/81 was for pipe fittings from CAMC0; these were rejected by the receiving inspector and a subsequent memo orcered a return to the vendor of the rejected fittings.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
- d. Quality Assurance Unit Audits Several audits had been performed by the site OA unit during the previous twelve months in the areas of receiving, storage, maintenance, and procurement activities. These audit reports were examinec and the audit schedule for current and future activity reviewed.
Audit.G010-81/24 on procurement was conducted April 22 - May 8, 1981.
The scope included organization; QA program review by management; cocument control; control of purchased materials; equipment and services; identification and control of material, parts, and compo- '
nents: anc corrective action. Several minor discrepancies were identi-fied during the audit but tne report concluded that the procurement program had been conducted in conformance with the apolicaole elements of the Quality' Assurance program.
Audit G010-81/87 on procurement was conducted October 19 - Novem0er 30, 1981. Tne scope of this audit was to review tne cualifiec vendor list,
]
5 review crograms controlling these lists, and review selectec curcnase orcers to verify program implementation; the purDose was to evaluate the adecuacy of control of vendor qualification programs for cuality related Q items. The report stated that voncors selected for ourchases of Q items were either from the Bechtel tvaluated Suppliers List or Georgia Power Qualifiec Suppliers List. One finding was that purcnase requisitions generatec by the electrical department with civil specifi-cations were not being reviewed by this department using electrical instruction DT-E-04 This item was closed March 2.1982.
Aucit GD10/M012-82/62 or fire protection procurement was conducted May 20-25, 1982. The scope included the review of Branen Technical Position 951 for application to procurement activity. Findings were icentified which involved Southern Services Company and Bechtel activi-ties; resolution is to be made by GPC HQ staff.
Audit M003-81/21 on pumps was conducted April 8-16, 1981. The scope included in-place storage, maintenance and inspections of pumps stored in place, and related documentation. One of the pumps referenced in this report was the chemical and volume control system (CVCS) charging pump number 2-1208-P6-02; the storage requirements specified by Bechtel document X6AH02-85-2 requires placement of a small porous eag con-taining Shell VPI-260 corrosion inhibitor on the baseplate and the unit covered with a plastic cover and suitably sealed. The sealed unit contained the protective atmosphere created by sublimation of the inhibitor. The QA auditor had found that the plastic was not sealed at the time of audit.
The recommended corrective action on 4/27/81 was that procedure GD-T-09 be revised to assure that implementation would control storage main-tenance. The corrective action response was that coordination person-nel would take a more active role to assure acequate fielo conditions and that when equipment was placed in a building, a concentrated ef fort would ce rade to minimize handling and access to equipment. The audit deficiency was closed on 1/8/82 but only on the basis of crocedure revision: implementation problems were found during closure review and were to be addressed in audit WH01-81/103.
Audit WH01-81/103 on equipmeat da-Storage maintenance was conductec Decemcer 14, 1981 througn January 18, 1982. Tne scope incluced review of current open item corrective actions, examination of acuipment maintenance documents, and field examination of ecuipment storage conoitions for samoled ecuipment. The audit identified a number of inacequate maintenance controls; the ceneral conclusions was that the overall maintenance program needed examination for adecuacy of engi-neer, craft and quality control interfaces. The CVCS cnarging oumo referenced in audit M003-31/21 was not directly addressed except that tne finding #189 nac ceen closed based on the revision to procecure GO-T-09.
j -
d b
k
) The cualification of tne audit team leacers were examinec; all accearec ,
4 to be experiencec individuals and fully qualified to concuct these !
audits. .
M thin this area, one violation was identified (paragrapn 5.e)
- e. Inplace Storage and Preventive Maintenance ,
s Ouring a walk-through of the auxiliary builcing. several items of
! installed equipment were selected for verification of the maintenance inspection activity. These incluced an a0 sorption tower, auxiliary condensor cooling water pump, CVCS charging pumps, and residual heat
- removal pumps.
I Rctation testing of the residual heat removal cump in room 48 was in progress at this time, and the team was having great difficulty rota-ting the shaft. A subsequent check verified that a Miscellaneous Daily j Report #204096 was issued identf fying this condition.
In conducting the inspection of the chemical and volume control system ;
cnarging pumps, one violation (424,425/82-13-01) was identified in-3 volving failure to take effective corrective action. 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8, Criterion XVI requires that measures be established to assure that conditions adverse te quality such as nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected. GPC procedure GO-T-09 requires that
- all equipment at its permanent location shall be made access-controlled
! to the greatest practical degree. On May 25, 1982, CVCS pump
! #2-1208-P6-02 was inspected and the other five charging pumps were inspected on May 28. It was apparent that the maintenance requirements 4
had been performed since one unit was well covered, the internal r i electrical space heaters were energized, the vapor inhibitor bags were l
present, and the equipment uncer cover was reasonably free of con-struction debris. The others had cover conditions ranging from poten- ;
tially open to nearly full removal, electrical lamps were broken or missing in two units, some had no inhibitor bags, and all had varying *
{ degrees of construction materials under the covers.
i Mechanical QC immediately issuet a memo requesting correction on being informed of the pump conditions; the Lemo indicatec that the cause of 1 ene proolem was the control of contractor Pullman craft personnel. The i problem of maintaining cover integrity had oeen icentified during j
April 1981 in audit M003-81/21; however, tne finding was closed in 1
January 1982 on the basis of precedure revision and without reaudit of actual conditions in the plant. Also, audit WH01-81/03 in January 1982
] clearly indicated a need to imcrove the interface between engineering, '
craf t, and Quality control Dersonne' .
l l Within this area, one vioiation was icentified for failure to take
]
J effective corrective action.
i i !
, --- ..,--a-...-,...,.n,.,,,,-.-,,,,,, - -a,, m.g-n- - , . - .
,,ne n, . - - + , , . - - , . . . - . , - - ~ , - - , , g,- -,m ..m,.n.,-r--
7
This inspection was performec to determine whether sitework is being accom-plisned in accordance with NRC reouf rements and SAR commitments, that the QA/QC program is functioning in a manner to assure tnat requirements and commitments are met, and that prompt and effective action is taken to j
. achieve permanent corrective action en significant discrepancies. Segments d of tne safety injection system (SIS) and the residual heat removal system
, (RHRS) work activities for Unit 1 a*u 2, respectively, were examined in tha rollowing areas to yrs 6 che inspection oojectives.
! i p 4. F' t a Ce1.t r.3 ; . S ug e
- Aes vt:, ;fd dar= Frccacure Pullman Power Products Procedures II-3 Level III. Nondestructive Personnel, Control and Acministra-tion, Qualification, and Certification, 8/19/81 II-4 Inspection and Testing Personnel, Control and Acministration of Training Examination, Qualification and Certification, i 10/26/81 i
i III-4 Drawing and Design Control Procedure, 3/31/82 III-7 Field Control of Original Piping Isometrics and Pipe Support Drawings Generated by BPC and Southern ' Company Services Engineering, 3/31/82 VI-5 Control of Process Sheets and Weld Rod Stores Requisitions, 1
6/16/81 l VII-2 Material Control 6/16/81 VIII-1 Identification of Materials, Parts and Ccaponents, 8/5/81 VIII-3 Control of Welding Materials (Field), 3/5/82 IX-3 Fabrication and Field Installation Specifications for Nuclear Power Plant Components. Pioing Systems anc Aopurtenances, ASME - Section III, 12/18/80 IX-14 Defect Removal and Repair ey Welding, 7/31/81 IX-19 Recuirements for Alignment and Fit-Up, 2/8/82 i
! IX-43' Procedure for Preheat, Interpass, anc Postweld Heat Treat-1 ment, 5/6/80 X-5 Fiela Receivine Inspection Procecure, 4/5/82 I
l X-11 Visual Examination - General, 4/27/81 l
..- . . . . . . - - - - - -- ------- - - . = - - - - - - ~ - - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
s S
X-18 Fielo Welding Inscection. 3/20/S2 XV-2 Procecure for handling Nonconformances (Field), 9 25,31 XV-4 Hold Tags Usage. 5/26/81 XVII-1 Field CA Records Procedure, 4/13/81 Construction Specification ";4 91, Plant Design anc Instrumentation.
- ". '92 I
uwg. No. 1K3-1204-006-01, R5, Safety Injection System, Fabrication Isometric Dwg. No. 1K3-1204-011-01. R7, Safety Injection System, Fabrication Isometric Dwg. No. 2K3-1205-004-01, R9, Residual Heat Removal Syst.eiii, Fabrication Isometric The inspector randomly selected the above listed field design crawings and procedures to ascertain whether the most recent revisions of drawings are used to perform work and whether the most recent revisions of construction specifications and work procecures are in agreement with tne SAR.
D. Field Inspection The inspector selected two separate segments of Unit l's partially completec SIS for examination. The first segment was comprised of orefabricated stainless steel 24" pipe s0001 piece assemblies SP-006-5-11, SP-006-5-12, and SP-006-5-13 connected by field welds 006-W-12 and 006-W-13. respectively. The second portion of the SIS examined consisted of a 6" pipe subassembly SP-011-S-04 connected by fielc welc 011-W-07 to a 6"-150 lb. motor operated gate valve (1HV8924).
For Unit 2 a segment of the RHRS consisting of a 12"-300 lb. motor coeratec gate valve (2HV88125) and a 12"-300 lb. swing cneck salve (21205U6002) which were to De connected oy a 12" spool piece 040-5-03 and associated field welds 04-W-01 and 04-W-02. resoectively, were selected for inspection.
The inscector made a detailed inspection of the work underway or the completed worir ano a record review to determine that these segments of ns SIS and RHR$ had been facricated. installed, and insoected in accordance with approved crawings, specifications, anc orocedures. l'n e inspector's discussions with various craftsmen anc coservations of tneir worn performance curing :ne installation anc weiding of cortions of ne suoject system incicatec tnat the craf t's level of knowlecge
- _ __ . ___ _ . .m . . -. _ _ , . .
l 9
pertaining to each work task was adequate to provice the recuirec quality of workmanship.
) c. Field Engineering anc Quality Control The inspector reviewed the following inspection records associated with
, the subject SIS /RHRS activities observed to determine their acequacy, whether deficiencies submitted received proper attention and corrective action, and if work and work controls were adequate:
i Equipment / Material Receipt Inspection Reports Subassembly Isometrics - Shop Fabrication Certification of Shoo Inspections Certified Mill Test Reports NDE Reports 1 -
Form NPV-1 Manufacturers Data Report for Nuclear Valves j -
Quality Releases (Westinghouse) l Certificates of Compliance Welding Procedure and Technique Sheets Weld Process Sheets Pertinent Welcer Qualification Records i
1 The inspector reviewed the' applicable QA/QC procedures (paragraph 6.a) t to cetermine that the frequency, timing, and acceptance criteria for the inspections were adequate.
4 The numoer of QC inspectors provided for the coverage of the subject piping / welding activities observed was satisfactory. Discussions concucted with the PPP OC inspectors and QA engineering personnel determined that their knowledge of piping / welding activities was 1
aceouate and that they conveyed the feeling that management was com-i mitted to a cuality program. The training qualification. and certi-fications of two PPP GC inspectors and one QA engineer were examined 4 and found in accordance with procedures.
1
- c. Nanconforming Items Reports (NCRs)
The inspector reviewed selected PPP NCRs for piping / welding construc-tion discrepancies to verify as applicable tnat:
! (1) the action taken corrected the items;
^
(2) the items were considered for reportability to the NRC; (3) the instituted ef fective action prevented recurrence; and (4) the contractor has an adequate program to detect trends in dis- ,
crepancies.
The following PPP NCRs were reviewec: 421. 485. 489. 490. 492. 528, t
537, 549. 553. 573. 578. 590. and 600.
4
, - - . . , , - . . .,,m.- _ , . . - - - _.m, __.,.,,..,,._.....r . m., . .
- . .- .- . . = - .- . -. .-
i i 10 l i
4
- e. Materials and E0uicment e 1
The reports of inspections (listed in caragraph 6.c) mace by tne
' licensee / vendor of materials used for the work in progress were examinec to verify that tne material met cesign and ourcnase order
, recuirements.
i.
I The inspector examined tne auxiliary building weld material distri-bution center (WMDC) ongoing activities which incluced handling, o storage, recuisition, issue and controls for return of is'suec welcing
+
materials.
f Audits The inspector reviewed the following PPP surveillances anc licensee j audits which have been performed on various phases of piping / welding construction activities.
1 PPP Surveillances
- j a 7037-1-82 7037-12-82 i 7037-4-82 7037-16-82 3 7037-11-82 7037-17-82 1
! GPC Audits M001-81/15, 81/66. 82/27 and 82/33 "QA Audit of Large Bore Piping"
^
p4 M002-81/35. 81/71 and 82/04 "0A Audit of Small Bore Piping" l
The acove surveillances and audits were examined to cetermine if they l- were meaningful, effective. reflect quality performance, and wnetner i corrective actions taken as a result of surveillance / audit findings l were proper, timely, and complete.
i C
Within the areas of piping / welding inspection activities, no violations or oeviations were icentifiec.
t, i
j 7. GA Insoection of Electrical Work Performance (35061)
This inspection was conducted to. determine whether the site work is being I. pe-formed in accorcance witn NRC requirements and SAR commitments, tne OA/0C crogram is functioning consistently with these recuirements anc commitments, ,
anc to assure tnat timely and effective action is taken to achieve permanent j corrective action on significant deficiencies.
1 j 7he inspector reviewed schedules, drawings, and work procecures relative to tne installation of safety related electrical and instrumentation work and j tne related OC and CA activities. A limitec numoer of electrical components t
anc cacinets are ceing stored in place in Unit I and supoorts anc raceways
(
. . .. - .- -. -- . - . = = - ,
11 i
i
{ are being installec, but safety class IE electrical cable pulling is not
, seneculed cefore the last ouarter of 1982. >
I a. '
Field Work Procecures and Documentation j
i The following documentaticn was reviewed to verify the inspection
' -ocjectives versus the commitments made in the SAR sections S.3.1.2.6 tnrough 8.3.1.2.9 and section ES, Raceway Systems, of :ne Construction l
Specification.
i Procedure Title or Subject i
- ED-T-01 Inspection of Embedded Items
! ED-T-02 Raceway Installation j-~
ED-T-04 Installation of. Major Electrical Equipment I
- ED-T-05 Cable Reel Control '
1 ED-T-07 Cable Installation i-GD-A-30 Receipt, Rec'eipt Inspection, Storage and Handling GO-T-01 Nonconformance Control MD-T-08 Control and Installation of Instrumentation Components OPT-A-01 Training, Qualification and Certification of
, - Technical Inspectors QA-05 Open Item Control The review of GD-T-01, Revision 8, indicates a 'need to document the L review of all nonconformance reports (NCR) for work onsite (Exhibit 1) by the OA Site Supervisor (0 ASS) for the applicability of recorting the NCR items as required by 10 CFR 50.55(e) and 10 CFR 21. The review is required and is being cocumented for NCRs on contractor work (Exhibit 8). Discussions with the OASS indicates that the review is ceing done and the procecure will be revised to discuss the review of ~
all NCRs for 10 CFR 50.55(e) and -10 CFR 21 and to document the review by revising Exhibit 1 and an evaluation section (such as section E).
The implementation of _this revised program and training related to i
GD-T-01 will be NRC inspector followup item 424,425/82-13-02, Occu-mentation of NCR Review for 10 CFR 50.55(e) and 10 CFR 21' Requirements.
! 0. Field Inscection Field ooservations and discussions with electrical craf t. OC. and 0A
- personnel were conducted relative to installation of electrical race-ways, raceway supports, and electrical equipment stored in place in the '
auxiliary building. Particular attention was given to raceways and l
tray supports in room 63. level A of the Unit- 1 auxiliary builcing, the conduit installation to the Chemical Feed Mix Tank in room 43, level 0 ;
' of tne Unit I auxiliary building. transformer switchboards in room 104, '
ievel 0 of tne Unit 2 auxiliary euilding and the raceways in room 02, ,
and tne concuit in place orfor to a concrete placement ~for :ne Unit 2 1 auxiliary building level 1 floor.
i l
~
12 i
Tne insoector also toured tne control building, tne fuel nandling building, and the Unit 1 containment with the QC Insoection Supervisor,
, Electrical. QC inspectors are routinely ooserving work in progress, but work is currently-limited to facility lignting anc work tnat is not
' safety related. '
- c. Training j The inspector reviewed the training program for the electrical and instrumentation field engineers and QC inspectors, reviewed tne train-ing ' course material listed below as representative samples of the
, training program, and toured the associated teaching laboratories used in tnese training courses.
- Trainino Courses Subject 1
j E-4.0 Raceways and Emcedded Items Inspection E-5.0 Cable Installation E-9.0 Cable Reel Control
! E-11.0 Anchor Bolt Inspection
! E-12.0 Cable Termination
- M-11.0 Installation Inspection of Controls and i Instrumentation M-30.04 Instrumentation and Controls Inspection M-30.4 Certification and Recertification of I&C Inspectors t
The courses are considered adequate for the purposes intended.
l The examination for the electrical courses are routinely changed, i
wnereas. the examinations for the instrumentation' courses (taugnt by
- ne mechanical instructors) have not oeen cnanged for several years. l 1
The examinations consist of questions for general knowledge of the.
i sucject plus questions for specific requirements for the procecure.
Some parts of the examinations are open book. The' courses and the examinations are approved by the licensee's Construction Department Training in the Atlanta office and the orf ginals of the examinations
! for individuals are in the Atlanta office. The QC inspection suoer-l i
visors keep track of the certification of their inspectors and the need for recertification.
~
- d. Audits
! The inspector reviewed audit plans and reports listed below and I
] discussed the subjects with the auditors and the OA Site Supervisor, 1 Audit Plan Subject Recert Nos.
l E001 Conduit anc Cable Trays 31/42, 81/85, 32/42
?
I l
. , , ,. , .,- -- -,,,-- ,. - , , . - - - - + - , , , , -w,-, ,, n, -n- ,r,,.,.., --,.,,n. ,---n , .,, , . ,w .,
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 1
l SEP 151982 U HQ FILE CO??
Georgia Power Company ATTN: Mr. R. J. Kelly Executive Vice President P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302 4
Gentlemen:
Subject:
Report Nos.624/82-19 and 50-425/82-19
) This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. W. F. Sanders of l this office on July 11 - August 10, 1982, of activities authorized by NRC
' Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 for the A. W. Vogtle facility and to the discussion of our findings held with Mr. H. H. Gregory, III, Construction
- Project Manager, at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with
- personnel, and observations by the inspector.
j Within the scope of this inspection, no violations or deviations were disclosed.
1 We have examined actions you have taken with regard to previously identified enforcement matters. These are discussed in the enclosed inspection report.
- In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will I
be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this letter and submit written appli-l cation to withnold information contained therein within thirty days of the date i
of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the requirements of i
10CFR2.790(b)(1). s i Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss i them with you.
i Sincerely, H. C. Dance, Chief Reactor Projects Branch 2 2
Division of Project and Resident Programs
Enclosure:
Inspection Report Nos. 50-424/82-19 l!
l 4
and 50-425/82-19 !
} cc's (See page 2) 1
~~*
- .i.innot a,ne.. .
PB '56 CK 03d 424'
- Q PDR .,,,y,,,, ,,
i
SEP 151982 Georgia Power Company 2 0 cc w/ encl:
H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Project Manager E. D. Groover, QA Site Supervisor D. O. Foster, Project General Manager M. Manry, Plant Manager bec w/ encl:
NRC Resident Inspector Document Management Branch State of Georgia RII RII RII kD $ DD JFRo,gge:g r VLBto?wn he HCDance c8/.,/82 p/.,/82, 8/' 82 I" (- gi i
UNITED STATES i .. +jp*8"%,,fo., NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j,3,, g REGION 11
- J' r 101 MAAIETTA ST., N.W., SulTE 3100 m, [ ATLANTA, GECRGIA 30303
- % . .w. . . J 1
1 j .. >
Report Nos. 50-424/82-19 and 50 425/82-19 l
- Licensee
- ' Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545
- Atlanta, GA 30302 ,
t
{ Facility Name: Alvin Vogtle 1 and 2 f Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 l License Nos. CPPR-108 and CPPR-109 i
Inspection at Vogtle Nuclear Station site near Waynesboro, Georgia Inspector: Y ;w r /&/72'-
WfF.Sancers y f/ Ohte 51gned 1
l Approved by: -
- V. L. Brownlee, Section Chief, Division of Date 5'ignec Projects and Resident Programs SUMtiARY i
i Inspection on July 11- August 10, 1982 1
l Areas Inspected i
l This routine, announced inspection involved 132 resident inspector-hours on site in the areas of primary containment fabrication, equipment handling and protec-l tion, structural steel installation, steam generator modifications, concrete 1
forms and placements, and pipe installation. !
s
- Results Of the 6 areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
I i
i i '
- i e i 1
i
- -at83 Q gvMOM P DR -
, a <
DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- H. G. Baker, Executive Vice President
- F. F. Stacy, General Manager, Oclethorpe Power Corporation H. H. Gregory, III, Construction Project Manager
- M. H. Googe, Assistant Construction Project Manager J. A. Bailey, Licensing Project Manager W. R. Evans, Project Section Supervisor E. D. Groover, QA Site Supervisor
- R. W. McManua, Manager of Quality Control C. R. Miles, Jr., QA Field Supervisor
- R. Newman, Manager of Field Operations P. Rice, Manager of QA and Radiation Health and Safety C. Sarver, Senior QA Engineer Other licensee employees contacted included construction craftsmen, technicians, inspectors and office personnel.
Other Organizations H. R. Reuter, Lead Resident Engineer, Bechtel Power Company W. G. Uheuse, Resident Engineer, Bechtel Power Company J. R. Runyan, Quality Assurance Manager, Pullman Power Piping L. Fields, Site Quality Control Supervisor, Chicago Bridge and Iron Co.
' Attended exit interview .
- 2. Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on August 10, 1982, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings listed below.
(0 pen) Violation 50-424, 425/82-11-02 " Scope of Inspection procedures -
Paragraph 3."
(0 pen) Inspector Followup Item 50-424, 425/82-19-01 " Protection for valves
- Paragraph 6d."
- 3. Licensee Actian on Inspection Findings (0 pen) Violations 50-424, 425/82-11 A procedure SU-T-01, Survey Control, was written to establish guidelines, methods and responsibilities as they would apply to survey section personnel in the layout of Unit 1
.__ . - --- . . . - ~ . ._- - - - - .. -. . _-
i -. .
l 1
t
- i. and Unit 2 construction. The inspector was informed that this procedure was written in response to the Violations " Failure to have procedures for i
final inspections." After a review of the procedure the inspector noted 1 that the procedure did not address all of the inspection characteristics !
r such as; linear dimensional inspections, circularity, radial measuring, '
i alignments, etc. The inspector was informed that this would be reviewed with required personnel and a response given. The violations will remain open until response is evaluated.
- 4. Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection,
- 5. Independent Inspection Effort.
Periodic inspections were made throughout this reporting period in the form j of general type inspections for different areas of both facilities. The 1
different areas were selected on the basis of the ongoing activities scheduled and varied daily to provide wide coverage. Observations were made of the activities in progress to note obvious defective items or items of i noncompliance with the required codes and regulatory requirements. On these i
inspections, particular note is made of the presence of quality control 4
inspectors, supervisors, and quality control evidence such as available l process sheets, drawings, material identification, material protection j performance of tests, housekeeping, etc. !
1 Interviews were also made with craft personnel, supervisors, coordinators, {
, quality control inspectors, and others as they were available in the work i i
areas. Inspections were made in the following areas: primary containments;
- j auxiliary building; control building; fuel handling building; fabrication of containment dome; field modifications of steam generators; material storage and pipe laydown areas; river intake structures; and nuclear service cooling j water structures; and employee terminations.
l With regard to these areas, specific inspections were made of the items
):
listed below.
l' a. Primary Containment Dome Fabrication - During the inspection of ground roof assemblies 466A to 479A, it was noted that eight (8) assemblies I i
had been welded with, X-ray and vacuum box testing complete. The inspector reviewed weld procedure G.W. P.S.- SMAWX Rev. I relative to t
specific provisions for welding wide gap weld seam. Chapter 13.0 i provides instructions and limitations for spacing up to 3/4" maximum. '
l Beyond 3/4" gap, a special repair procedure is written. A review was ;
made of Special Repair Procedure SR3 which provided criteria for wide '
- gap welding on reactor cavity and thickened imbedment plate 54-0R and i between sump 45A and bottom plate 79-SL. Additional reviews were made of Special Rapair Procedures SR-4, SR-5, SR-6, SR-7 SR-8 and SR-9. An ;
- inspection was made of the work activities on the center head assembly ;
- " Dollar Plate" of the fitting, welding, and grinding, j a
t i
l 1
t
._..-,._~~____,,.-..,_,_,_w.___.--.__ ..,.,.__-.-,,-mm_,,,__---..__._m,.___,_.__.- - , , .
i s .. ,
3
- b. Steam Generator Modifications - A meeting was held between the inspector and personnel fror.' Westinghouse Manufacturing facility in Pensacola, Florida regarding the addition of auxiliary feed water nozzles to' be installed in the field on the steam generators for Unit
- 1. The 4 steam generators for Unit I would be modified in the field.
' The steam generators for Unit 2 will be modified at the vendor plant.
The work will be under the jurisdiction, supervised, and performed by personnel from Pensacola with the following exceptions:
(1) The welders will be local with the tests and qualifications by Westinghouse.
(2) Radiography and N.D.E will be performed by contract with Law Engineering, Atlanta using Pensacola procedures and final radio-graph read and approved by Westinghouse.
(3) The stress relieving will be performed by Heat Engineering Inc.
(4) ANI Code inspector will be involved and Code papers will be revised to reflect the additional nozzles.
Additional inspections will be performed periodically throughout the activity.
a c. Employee Terminations - The inspector was informed by the licensee representative that the contractor responsible for the installation of l
structural steel had terminated 6 craft and 2 supervisors for
" unsatisfactory work." The contractor stated that the term "unsatis-j factory work" was intended tc mean quantity of work and refusal to follow orders and had no reference to product quality. This was subsequently confirmed by a licensee Quality Assurance special audit SP01-82/93 performed between 7-28-82 through 8-2-82. The audit included; review of cause for discharge, field inspection of the welding and bolting, and review of applicable documentation of the activities covered during the tenure of employment of the identified employees. There were no deficiencies relevant to the quality of the work identified. This is also confirmed be the inspector based on periodic inspections made in the primary containment and observations made of the torquing operations performed to the requirements of X2AP01 j C.S.I. The inspector also attended the critique meeting when the audit report was presented and discussed with the contractor.
- d. During a walk through inspection in a high traffic area the inspector observed air operated valves with Fisher controls without protection.
The valves operating parts were unprotected and had accumulated a covering of grit and dirt and concrete spatter on one. [n reviewing these conditions with the licensee Quality Assurance section the inspector was informed that a OA Audit M0-04-82/70 had identified other i stored valves and equipment without adequate protection. This item is i considered an Inspector Followup Item 50-424, 425/82-19-01.
., s
, s .-
4 i
- 6. Millet Fault 1
An NRC/ licensee meeting was held to discuss subject matters., on July 14, 1982. The licensee was represented by J. Bailey and G. Grainger of Southern Company Services and T. Crosby of Bechtel Civil and Minerals. The NRC was represented by I. Alterman, Geosciences Branch, J. Grant LPM, NRR, J. Harris, Region II and the Resident Inspector. The meeting was held to discuss the licensee progress, examine core samples and related data and tour the drilling sites.
l i
4 i
- s a a8%q'o
.s
' g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
2 REGION lli k #
798 ROOSEVELr ROAD GLEN ELLYN. ILLINOIS 80137
%, . . . . . ,e*
2n' ! 19 81 If N -
Docket No. 50-546 Docket No. 50-547 Public Service of Indiana ATTN: Mr. S. W. Shields Senior Vice President Nuclear Division P. O. Box 190 New Washington, IN 47162 Gentlemen:
On March 25, 1980, NRC committed to have independent engineering consultants evaluate the concrete construction issues associated with the August 15, 1979 Order confirming suspension of construction at the Marble Hill facility.
Subsequently, under an NRC contract with Parameter, Inc. , }{acun Engineers, Inc., San Diego, Calif 6rnia, was established as the independent engineering consultant.
Enclosed for your information is the consultant's final report titled,
" Review of the Evaluation of Concrete at Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2". This report supports the actions taken by the NRC in its graduated recision of the August 15, 1979 Order confirming suspension of construction.
560 I
.s N#%r.s ,
//
QD L
Y **P \
q 19B k'. $$
k/
'I ~ ;~t \p 7
refA-gq.293
Public Service of Indiana M IO If you have any questions regarding the report, please contact C. C. Williams of this office.
Sincerely, James G. Keppler Director
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl:
W. M. Petro, Executive Director, Nuclear Project Management C. Kammerer, CA J. H. Sniezek, IE DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector, RIII LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Dave Martin, Office of Attorney General John R. Galloway, Staff Director, Environment, Enargy and Natural -
~__
Resources Subcommittee E. P. Martin, Wabash Valley Power Association RIII RIII RI I 3 - RIII RI I (lkY' R 44N' 7 .
' .I .jhb ^U -
Willians/np Spessard Schweibinz 11 Kepp er 6/30/81 ( -30 .Y/
Nor7 Srlo g' is
/. '
,~,
1 ..
1 1
Rtv11N '
OI' T11R
! CVAI.lfATION 01' CONCHI:TE AT MARMLE HILL NUCLEAR CENERATION STA tion
- UNITS 1 AND 2 1
REPORT NO. IE-124 June 25,1981 '
i 4
Prepared for: Ifnited Statew *uclear Regulat urv Cr$mmi wlon 4
01fice of Inwpertton and 1:nforcement [
i NRC f:ent rar t 0"i-H D-2 51 b,
PAN: Ml:C-II:-M f'/M 1, 'in ik 02 L
hy: , j , ,
AIIr p 1.. Pa rme' Conaulting KnsInver
!.a lolla, Cn! i1 orn tu
' . v.T
.s 9; h:a. Q ;
.s C ,
W/) sM U. sM dw f[
99-:qD;C, /, 6 i
, 'v ,'
Rolland C. Hamm, P.E.
i ,
,, II[ .,'
Ho nm En g inec r* , I nc . ,
j O No.CU77., [ - San Otegn, Callfernia-
. !,\ h /> Thru: Pe rsErr.n, rsc.
\. .
,,J... r'onsulting En g i n ee r-
[
i \w,'.7_. - ,
,.* El r 8: rove, k'l .<- nn i n 4-i 4
l
,% " {
s l
f i 4 .* .
, i l
. . t 4
P t
i l :
l i
4 4 I 4
1 j
NOTICF.
t 3
I r
This report was prepared as an account of l 1
work sponsored by an agency of the United
States Government. Neither the United States 1
Covernment nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, maken any warranty, expresned or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 1
I responsibility for any third party's use, or the rusults of wuch use, of any informat ton, L apparatus, product or procesa disclowed in this report, or representa c luit its u.e hv '
sur b t hIrd peirr y won lel not in f r in p,s. priv.iteiv owned r is; hts.
1 i
I J
1 t i * !
}
l s
t I
l t i t
i f
1 O
I f
l l
, 48
- - . . . - . - . . . - , - . , , , , - - . . - - - _ _ . . - . . , , , - - - - - , - - . . - . . . _ . - - , , . - . . _ - _ . - - . - - . . - - - , . - , , , , , - - . . , . - , , , , , , . . . . .-n--------,-- . - , , - ,
SUMARY STATEMENT Based on the investigation made, the concrete st ructures at Marble ilill Nuc1 car Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, were found to have been constructed of very good quality concrete material (of I igher strength than required or specified), but with concrete placement which failed to meet requirements. This necessitated repairs to bring the af f ected structures into compliance for acceptance without egual if Ira t lou.
The task began with. a review of the original Sargent & !. undy Report.
SL-3753, Evaluation of In-Place Concrete at Marble Hill Nuclear Generat ing S ta t io n . Un it s 1 and 2, da t ed Nov ember 20, 1979. Discussiens with the licensee, Sargent & Lundy Engineers and NRC resulted in preparation of
. report errata, withdrawal of errata, and then issuance of a revised report.
Revision 1 was issued on November 21, 1980. The Revision 1 Report was a well prepared document containing reliable inf o rma t ion.
Based on the numerous investigations made and a comprehensive review of the SL-3753 Report, Revision 1, along with the inspection of surfaces and the findings from the line drilling and/or coring of SL-3753 test areas, we are able to verify that internal concrete in t he saf et y-rela ted Category I structures of the Marble Hill Nuclear Plant consist s of homogen-eous concrete with a 95% reliability and 95% confidence 1cvel. This, com-hined with the local ized crit tent structural st rengtle demanil%, y ichl* a confidence and reliability level above 95% for structural adequacy. Tin s ,
the quality of the internal concrete in the structures is acecptable.
1
.Mo
J'. 1
, , The suspension of construction dictated by NRC on Aucunt 15, 1979 !
4 was prompted by the observation of numerous surface defects and inadequate patching. The number of visible surface def ects greatly excceded that which would have been obtained by good practice. The contrant between l
the good quality of the interior concrete and the concrete near the sur-i face and at construction joints is due primarily to the dif ficulty of pro-4 perly vibrating the concrete between the layer of reinforcement and the forms and not properly preparing construction joints. The open space between the reinforcement and the forms is considerably less than that i prevailing in the interior. Therefore, consolidation of the concrete near the surface was more dif ficult than in the interior. The dif ference
.; in the quality of concrete between the interior and the surface concrete and construction joints was confirmed in a number of cases where nondes-tructive testing was made adjacent to surface defects. In spite of the J
apparently inferior concrete at the surface and at construction joints the interior concrete testing revealed solid concrete.
l Based on our investigation of a selected number of visible surface defects, identified by the licensee in the Construction Verification Pro-
- gram No. SPP-$ we are able to verify that the surface preparations made and repair of the concrete patch and repair areas observed were consistent I
with good c'onstruction practice.
Based on the review of information furnished relating to the exam-I ination of concrete surfaces under the Construction Verification Program
- No. SPP-5, we conclude that the program is very extensive and thorough and should identify all concrete patches and repair areas. Based on i
review of prncedures for repair and evaluar inn of concrete patein s and repair areas, we are able to verify that they are consis' tent with good construct ion practice.
i Further, if the, procedures are followed and high I
4 2
1
. ,s standards of workmanship are maintained, the structural integrity and bio-1 logical shielding requirements of the concrete structures should be met.
It is recommended that repairs made of those concrete patches and repair areas, evaluated as structural def ects, be inspected and evaluated six months af ter their completion. This should determine if the integrity of the repair patching has been adversely af fec ted by either shrinkage of repair material or dif ferential volume change of the new and old concrete.
It is also recomme ,ded that the grout used in repairs of concrete patche s and repair areas have concrete strengths as close as possible to the orig-inally placed concrete in order that new and old concrete involved in the ,
repair have closer moduli of elasticities. This is particularly recommended for areas where strain compatibility is desired because of adverse effects from dif ferent strains.
Visible inspection of concrete surfaces of inaccessible areas iden-tified in the SPP-5 Program, which have not had forma removed and are there-fore inaccessible, was not made and is not addressed in this report.
4 e
e o
is
. Scep7 rf Inv"stination The following is the Scope of Work of the investigation as indicated s
in NRC Contract 05-80-251 PAR:NRC-IE-80181, Task d2.
Provide NRC-IE assistance as a technical consultant in the review of:
(1) Concrete deficiencies, known as "honeycombing," found at Marble Hill facility through visual observation; (2) The program to determine if internal voids exist; (3) The repair procedures; (4) The complete repairs; and (5) The evaluation of the af fected structures to determine whether they meet the original design intent.
The effort involved review of the techniques used to locate voids, l
discontinuities, etc., to determine if all significant deficiencies had in all probability been detected. These techniques included coring, pulse echo, and through transmission. The repair procedures and repairs, made as a result of the findings of the investigations, were also to be reviewed for adequacy.
The main basis of our review effort was the report submitted by the licensee a.nd its ref erences as prepared by Sargent & Lundy, Report SL-3753, Evaluation of In-Place Concrete, Narble Hill Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, dated November 20, 1979.
The objectives of the investi ationB were as follows :
(1) To provide an independent assessment of the type and extent of deficiencies in concrete construction, defined as honeycombing, and/or voids that could have safety significance; (2) To provide en independent assessment of any needed repairs or remedial actions: and (3) To provide independent conclusions regarding the capability of the affected structures to perfor,a the intended design functions.
4 h4
- \ '
i Backaround l The safety-related concrete work at Marhic 'llill Nuclear Generat ing a
{ Station, Units 1 and 2, was halted under NRC's Order Confirming Suspension
) i
' of Construction, dated August 15, 1979. This order was issued as a result i
of quality control and construction management inadequacies. Some surface l
def ects in the concrete were found by the NRC to have been improperly i
patched. Additional problems with concrete placement and quality control procedures were also identified during NRC inspections.
l 1 On July 17, 1980, NRC retained, through Parameter, Inc . , Alf red L.
I Parme and Rolland C. Hamm as independent consultants. The initial effort-of the task was slowed by the need for comprehensive review and study and
{
the receipt of related information. The investigation of internal concrete j !
continued through March,1981. At that time, the independent consultants j requested line drilling and/or coring of designated SL-3753 test areas.
j From March,1981, to June,1981, the investigation continued and was related i
1, to surface defects which were identified under Construction Verification j Program No. SPP-$.
j Based on an NRC determination that the scope of our task order had i
essentially been met, a final report with appropriate qualifications of ,
our conclusions was requested on June 15, 1981, by NRC Region III to be
] prepared as soon as possible.
t
! 5 i
i e l
l l
1 4
_ _ ~ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ - , , . . , - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ , . _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ . _ _ _ . , . , . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ , . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _
,g m Ev31untion of Structur.al Adiquacy A. Concrete Strength '
i Information furnished by the contractor identified the amount of i
t concrete placed in the Category I safety-related structures at the Marble Hill Facility as approximately 92,000 cubic yards. Information furnished by Sargent & Lundy identified four (4) concrete mix designs as being used at Maitle Hill. The mix designs had 3500 psi or 5500 psi specified design strengths. A sumust of the 91-day compressi:,n strength test results.
3 made during placement of concrete, along with pertinent concrete quality control information is shown in Table 1.
t 4 With respect to 3500 psi concrete (Concrete Mix No. 01) review of the 4
strength test data revealed that all of the individual cylinder tests (average of two cylinders made from a sasiple) and all of the averages of three consecutive cylinder test values exceeded the 3500 psi specified design strength.
Table i shows a standard deviation of 606 psi, a coef ficient of i.
4 variation of 10.8% and a within test variation of 2.9%. These values indi-cate good to excellent standard of concrete control (i.e., materials, concrete
) manufacture, and testing) when compared with concrete industry standards >
l which are identified in ACI 214-77 shown in Table 3.
1 j The 5023 psi allowable design strength shown in Table 1 is mentioned i
in the SL-3753 Report, Revision 1. Review of cylinder strength test data in Table 1 indicates a lower value than 5023, but still somewhat in excess of the specified design strength of 3500 psi. Strength values of the lowest
- 25 test values of the 689 reported values for the 3500 psi concrete are shown in Table 2.
] .
1
. 6 l
l i
7 i
With respect to 5500 psi concrete (Concrete Mix Nos. 26. 27 and 28).
review of strength test data revealed that all of ,the averages of threc consecutive cylinder tests exceeded the 5500 psi specified design strength.
All of the individual cylinder test values except one, for Concrete Mix Nos. 26, 27. and 28, were not less than 500 psi below the $500 pst value.
Table 1 shows standard deviation values between 530 pst and 590 psi, r
coef ficients of variation between 7.6 and 8.8%, and within - test coeffi-cients of variation (i.e., spread of test results) from 2.9 to 3.7%.
These values indicate good to very good standard of concrete control according to the concrete industry standards of control which are shown in Table 3.
The SL-3753 Report, Revision 1, identifies an allowable design strength of 6126 psi for the 5500 psi concrete. Table 1 identifies three design strengths (6144, 5810 and 6244 psi) for the three $500 psi concrete mixes.
Individual test values more than 500 psi below the 6126 psi value and the average of three consecutive cylinder test values.which were less than the 6126 psi value are shown in Table 4 Strength values of the lowest 9 of 5*7
- reported test values for 5500 psi concrete are shown in' Table 4 Review of cylinder test data in Table 3 identifies an allowahle design strength value in excess of the specified or required 5500 psi strength, but slightly less than the 6126 psi value noted above.
] It should be noted that the strength of concrete for Mix Nos. 01, i
26, 27 and 28 exceeds the specified design strength. Should it be desir-
! able to utilize higher strength in future work, it is recommended that c
the strength level which is to, be used should be determined on the basis of Chapter 4.7(a) and (b) and 4.8.2.3 of ACI 318-77 Building Code.
j J
7*
/bs
3 Based on the above strength and quality control information, we are able to conclude .that all the concrete placed in Category I safety-related structures at the Marble Hill Nuclear Plant is of good to exec 11ent quality and has strengths higher than required for both the 3500 psi and 5500 psi concretes.
i 3
4 1
i i
1 1
4 8
e
..-. ~ - _ _ . - _ _ _ . .- _-
r s B. Structural Conoia. nriono The homogeneity of the concrete as ascertained by the nondestruc tive testing, combined with the results of the 91-day cylinder tests and unit weights obtained, give assurance that the quality of concrete provides adequate structural strength and biological shielding. Besides this, there are other pertinent factors which contribute to further assurance of the structural adequacy.
First, in all beams and structural slabs, the percentage of rein-forcement used is so low, that the capacit/ of the critical sections are l controlled by the strength of the stccl. Based on struc tu ral information furnished by S&L and perusal of engineering drawings for the maximum per-centage of reinforcement employed, a reduction of 30% in concrete strength
, would decrease the bending capacity by only 5%. Thus, the presence of 1
small voids in the compressive region of the beams and structural slabs
- I would have an insignificant ef f ect on beam ficxural resistance.
In columns, reduction in concrete strength has a direct relationship with structural capacity when the capacity is related primarily to the magnitude of axial load imposed. However, the columns designed in confor-mance to prevailing practice based on the ACI code have about 30% greater j aargin of safety than beams due to the smaller e factor employed for columns.
Thus, the structural strength of a framing system with columns and beams
, stressed to 'the same percentage of design strength is ' dictated by the capa-city of the beam.
l 6
9
- l I
I L
The preceding deals essentially with the resistance to bending and axial load. However, the structtiral capacity is also re!.ated to shear capacity of the concrete.
For the Herble Hill plant, the shear stresses induced are in general well below the allowable values. This is primarily due to the low height to length ratios of the walls and long spans of the beams involved.
The wave reflection observed in the nondestructive testing in some cases were interpreted as indicating a localized lack of bond.
On questioning and evaluation of this salient factor, this interpretation was qualified to mean a lack of adhesion between the concrete and rein-fo rc ement .
This phenomenon of imperfect adhesion between concrete and reinforcement prevails in most concrete construction and is inherently taken into account in allowable bond values. In assessing the signifi-cance of lack of adhesion, it must b'e recognized that adhesion plays a minor role in supplying bond resistance.
Most of the bond resistance is provided by the bearing of the concrete on the deformations of the steel reinf o rc ement.
The size of separation reported to be between the concrete and reinforcement, termed lack of adhesion, has minor ef fect on this latter interaction.
i Thu s , there is no significant decrease in bond strength, Purthermore, the allowable bond values used do not take into account the increase in bond resistance due to the presence of closely spaced stirrups which exist at critical shear sections. Stirrups, by increasing the splitting strength of the concrete, increases bond resistance.
l 10 l
l l
l tr F
\ -. __
,s
. .C. Internal Concrete The investigation of inter.,a1 concrete at Marble Hill involved the in-place Category I and II concrete. The NRC required examination of existing concrete by randomly selecting and testing a statistical sample representative of both congested and uncongested volumes. The Sargent and Lundy selection of 60 test areas met the NRC critoria. The calculated number of test areas (with saro defects or no unacceptable discontinuities),
needed by standard and well accepted statistical methods to meet the 95%
reliability level with 95% confideneg is 58.4 Tpsting of more areas yielding zero def ects, therefore, results in a reliability level higher than 95% with 95% confidence.
The information contained in the original SL-3753 Report was in part
- inaccurate, unclear and insufficiently comprehensive. These conditions did not permit independent verification of the S&L conclusion that the i
in-place concrete at Marble Hill met structural integrity and biological shielding requirements with 95% reliability and a 95% confidence level.
Subsequent review of errata sheets to the original SL-3753 Report did not resolve all of the identified concerns.
Our investigation identified two test areas in which grout was apparently placed in lieu of concrete. The nondestructive testing in these areas did not reveal the presence of any discontinuity. If the two areas were not included in determining a confidence level (i.e.,
using 58 test areas), the confidence level obtained (with zero defects found) would be 94.9% with a 95% reliability. Therefore, accepting 94.9%
as a 952 value, the omissian of these two test areas would still result 11 l
l Mfk
ex
~~
in a confidence level of 95 .. In our judgment, this confidence Icvc1 is increased by the fact that the fif ty-eight test areas involved over 1400 independent nondestructive tests. The magnitude of the increase is difficult to judge.
The designation of test areas as congested or uncongested was re-viewed . An independent classification of the areas selected by Sargent
& Lundy resulted in different classifications. However, it is felt t ha t such determinations are somewhat arbitrary and no particular standard has been established. It was concluded that the Sargent & Lundy designations of areas as congested or uncongested were reasonable.
The nondestructive testing performed was microseismic testing (Pulse Echo and Through Transmission) . The through transmission method was utilized on three columns and the pulse echo method on the remaining test areas.
One of the three column areas was also tested at a nearby location using the pulsa scho method. The through transmission method is designated by ASTM Standard C597-71, _ Standard Method of Test for Pulse Velce it y Through Concrete.
The pulse echo method is not designated by an industry standard. However, it is an acceptable method that is capable of identifying the presence of non-interconnecting air voids in the con-crete as small as 1/8" to 1/2" diameter. -
The review and related discussions concerning SL-3753 Report, Revision 1, included comparison of the data analysis information with the '
field test records and meeting notes. This review revealed discrepancies as to designations assigned by R. Muenow. Specifically, designation of discontinuities as honeycomb, cracks and major separations which were 12 I
4 reported in the field records and meeting notes contrasted with the discus-sions and conclu4 ions documented on data analysis , sheets found in the SL-3753 Report , Revision 1.
The key critical aspect of the nondestructive microseismic testing (Pulse Echo) is the validity of interpretation made by R. Muenow and other participants regarding the extent and size of discontinuities identified during the nondestructive testing performed. As a result of discussions with R. Muenow and others who are reputable, experienced, and presently involved in the field of microseismic testing, we have concluded that the method of nondestructive testing performed at Marble Hill is acceptable.
The interpretations made and equipment used by R. Maenow are at the forefront of the state of the art.
Discussions with R. Muenow established that many of the discontinuities he observed were of. small magnitude (i.e. , less than the height o f a re i,n-forcing bar deformation) . In response to questions in regard to " apparent charges" in discontinuity characterizations, Hr. Huenow indicated that during the first weeks of inspection, the initial discontinuity characterizations were assigned before a site-specific designation was established. There were no changes in interpretations, only a change in the designations.
To verify this information,we inspected concrete surfaces at seven locations where surface discontinuities had been designated as honeycomb.
The inspection verified at those seven locations that discontinuities desig-nated as honeycomb were entrapped air. This confirmed the explanations given 1
and was also consistent with the information in the SL-3753 Report, Revision 1.
~t The written procedure, Evaluation of Concrete (Pulse Echo Method),
required additional testing of the suspect areas at 6-inch intervals to out-line parametern of indications. When the discontinuities were interpreted by 13 hh l - - - . - - ,
Mr. Muenow to be of such small size or explainable, no extension of tests was deemed necessary. ,
The adequacy of the pulse echo method and equipment was demonstrated at Marble Hill with NRC observation on June 27, 1979. Confirmation of the preciseness of the Pulse Echo procedure was observed by the consultants through the demonstration on the test block and in several test areas within the structures. NRC Report No. 50-546/79-07; 50-547/79-07, dated September 18, 1979, identifies the qualification of the above test method for Marble Hill. The NRC report also has a Notice of Violation relating to quality control aspects and procedural parameters associated with the pulse echo testing. The report indicates that each of the identified non-compliances involved were completely corrected and resolved prior to the testing for record.
Discussions with the NRC and review of information identified that an approved procedure fer pulse echo testing was obtained and used on July 6, 1979. This is the initial date of testing identified in the SL-3753 Report, Revision 1. The through transmission testing was found to have been done in accordance with ASTM C597-71 except that a mechanical wave producer was used in lieu of an electrical one. Discussions with NRC determined that this would be an approved procedure for Marble Hill.
In the 58 test areas (omitting two areas related to grout placements) there were 1439 individual test readings obtained. The number of readings where no discontinuities were observed (i.e., concrete was solid) was 1185.
Discontinuities were reported to be observed at 254 test locations, involv-ing 42 of the 60 selected test areas. The SL-3753 Report Revision 1 attri-butes many of these to localized lack of bond between concrete and reinforc-ing steel or between concrete and embedded steel support frames. Some discontinuities were also attributed to the presence of construction joints or embedded pipes, etc.
4
$4
f7 '
The identification of discontinuities was expec ted becau se of t he fact that small structurally insignificant air voids are normally ammoc- ,
isted with embedded materials, construc tion joints, etc . All identified discontinuities examined in accordance with all approved procedures demonst rated that all of the 60 test areas were acceptable (i.e., alI of the test areas were f ree of any struc tu rally signi ficant d i scont inu i-ties).
On tech rua ry 12, 1981, the l icensee id en t i f i ed four test areas where the St.-3753 Report, Revision 1, ident if ied interpretat ions that discon-tinuities were attributable to construction joints. These joints were e
identified to be non-existent because the concrete was placed monol i t hical l y.
This was an apparent error in the construc tion joint d ra w i n gs .
To further confirm the adequacy and accuracy of the discussions and conclusions of the SL-3753 Report, Revision 1, regarding the changes in characterizations and designations of discontinuities discussed previously; and to examine concrete where there were changes in interpretation attri-buted to construction joints; an investigation by line drilling and/or coring and visual inspection of surfaces was recommended.
Our Ictter dated March 5,1981, requesting the defil ing and/or cor in ; ,
is shown in Exhibit A. The f i'nd ings repo rt ed f rom the l ine drill ing and coring of SL-3753 test areas indicate that disenntinuities prev ious1v reported are of limited extent and structurally insignificant. !
These findings, along with our inspection of test locations verify that the designations and interpretat ions are consistent with the conc lu*lons i
of the Revision 1 Report SL-3753.
15
D. Surface Defects The occurrence of surface defects is not uncommon in concrete const ruc tion. The situation at Marble Hill, however, is unusual in the number and extent of surface defects. However, the frequency of occurrence merely signifies that greater and more careful repair has to be made.
The identification, evaluation and repair of all surface defec ts is covered under the Construction Verification Program No. SPP-5. The program was found to involve an extensive and thorough documented visual inspection and evaluation of all visible concrete surfaces. The repair procedures were reviewed and found to be consistent with good construc t ion practice.
Areas inaccessible due to formwork are required to be identified and then ihspected as accessibic areas when formwork is removed. Areas inaccessible because of backfill are required to have interior surfaces inspected and evaluations made of the inaccessible services.
We recommended that repairs made of those concrete patches and repairs, evaluated as structural def ects, be inspected and evaluated six months after their completion. This should determine if the integrity of the repair patching has been adversely af fected by either shrinkage of repair material or the dif ferential volume change of the new and old concrete.
1 It is also recommended that the grout used in repairs of concrete patches and repair areas have concrete strengths as close as possible to the originally placed concrete strength in order that new and old conc rete involved in the repair have similar modull uf elast ic it ies.
This is particularly recommended for arcas where strain enmpat ibi,l it y is i
desired because of the adverse ef fects from different strains.
16 i
i
- - , - , . - ,. -.-.-p - -- , .-. - -, - - . , . -
. Crnelusiens .,
Based on the investigation made, the concrete structu res at Ma rble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2.'were found to have been constructed of very good quality concrete material (of higher strength than required or specified), but with concrete placement which failed to meet requirements.
Based on the numerous investigations made and a comprehensive review of the SL-3753 Report, Revision 1, along with the inspection of surfaces and the findings from the line drilling and/or coring of SL-3753 test areas, we seu abic to verify that internal concretc in the safety-related Catennry I structures of the Marble Hill Nuclear Plant consists of homogeneous concrete with a 95% reliability and 95% confidence level. This, combined with the localized critical structural strength demands yields, a confidence and reliability level above 95% for structural adequacy. Thus, the quality of 1
the internal concrete in the structures is acceptable.
Based on our investigation of a selected number of visible surface def ects, identified by the licensee in the Construction Verification Program No. SPP-5, we are able to verify that the surface preparations made and repair of the concrete patch and repair areas observed were consistent with good construction practice.
Based on the review of information furnished relating to the exam-ination of concrete surfaces under the Construction Verificatiun Program No. SPP-5, we conclude that the program is very extensive and t ho rough and should identify all concrete patches and repair areas. Ba sed on review of procedures for repair and evaluat ion of conc rete patches and repair areas, we are able to verify that they are consistent witig good construction practice. Further, if the procedures are followed and high standards of workmanship are maintained, the structural integrity and bio-logical shielding requirements of the. concrete structures should be met.
17 M4
TABI.E 1. .
I
. 91-DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH RESULTS -
i
...eeeeeeee.eeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeee....a e ee.....eeeeeeeeeeeeeee RESULTS RESULTS eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. ee FOR RESULTS RESULTS FOR FOR CONCRETE No. Of CONCRETE NO. 26 FOR e...eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee CONCRETE NO. 27 CONCRETE NO. 20 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ....eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
St-DAY RESULTS st-0AY RESULT 5
................ ................ st-DAv RESULT 5 st-DAY I ,JL TS EAPECTED OR SPECIF IED STRENGTH (PSE ) . . . . . . . ................
3500.0 ..............
ELLOWI8LE DESIGN STRENGTH (PSI) . . . . . . . . . 5500.0 5500.0 5023.3 6844.1 5500.0 J
5990.9 6244.3 CEO*ICEO AVERAGE STRENGTH (PSIl . . . . . . . . . 4409.0 6348.6 MECN 065ERVED STRENGTH (PSI). . . . . . . . . . . 5932.3 6372.2 6992.6 4232.3 6683.2 69T6.6 NLF8ER OF 5AMPLES . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
STcto*RO DEVIATION (PSI). 689 40T
. . . . . . . . . .. . 605.7 38 102 COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION (%) . . . . . . . . . . . 579.8 590.0 CVEC*GE RANGE (PSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.2 3.3 529.8 193.0 3.8 7.6 tilTHIN-TEST ST ANDARD DEVI AIION(%) . 20s.7 221.8
. . .. . . . 179.8 255.9 290.4 (ITHIN-TEST COEFFICIENT OF WARIATION(5) ..... 2.9 196.0 257.4 NUsmEO OF S Af*PLES flE tov FC-500 . .
- 3.7 2.9
% OF SAMPLES BELOW FC-500 O t 3.7
. . . . . . . . . . . .0 O o NusEEQ OF TIMES MOVING AVG. OF 3 FELL SEL0tt FC. . .2 .0 O .0
% OF 5 AMPL E S WHE RE MOV. AVG. OF 3 FELL SELOW FC . O O
.O .O o NUMBER OF TIMES INE FFICIENI IESTING OBSERVED. . . 4 .O .0 s 0 2 Ot
LOWEST /1-DAY STRENG7H TEST RESULTS Concrete No. 01 Specified Design Strength 3500 psi Individual Average Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Test of Test Sample Sample Ave. of 2 3 Cylinder No. 1 2 Samples Tests 2 3920 4270 4095 4582 184 4530 4670 4600 4932 18 5 4940 5190 5065 4877 I
229 4760 4940 4850 4843 233 4590 4550 4570 4927 235 4910 4910 4910 4988 243 5200 5190 5195 4958
- 276 5130 5190 5160 4990 300 4830 4880 4855 4990 i
3 02 5130 4990 5060 4997 549 4590 4710 4650 4972 550 4970 5200 5085 4888 4
554 5020 4670 4845 4893 555 5110 4620 4865 4783 612 4940 4710 4825 4942
) 6 13 5200 5060 5130 4832 622 4510 4390 4450 4778 623 5430 5540 5485 4832 684 4390 4500 4445 4987 68 5 3990 3930 3960 4610 j 68 6 4170 4100 4135 4180 68 7 4680 4700 4690 4262 688 4960 4940 . 4950 4592 1 68'9 5130 5260 5195 4945 y.- , , . . ~ _ . , , , ..,-.__y.- _ - ,_ .- - . - . . - __-,.. _ -,-,, . , , , . - , , - . _ _-,
7
~
. n
^
tENGTH TEST EVALUATION f
. l TABLE 3 -STANDARDS OF CONCRETE CONTROL l Overall variation 1 l Standard deviation for different control standards, psi (kt f/em:)
i Cass of operation Exceller.t Very good Good Fair Poor l
Gtneral construction below 400 400 to 500 500 to 600 600 to 700 above 700 4 testing (28.1 ) (28.1) (35.2) (35.2) (42.2) (42.2) (49.2) (49.2)
Laboratory trial below 200 200 to 250 250 to 300 300 to 350 above 350 batches (14.1) (14.1) (17.6) (17.6) (21.1) (21.1) (24.6) (24 6)
. Within-test variation .
t Coeffleient of variation for different control standards. percent Cass of operation
- Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor FisId control testing below 3.0 3.0 to 4.0 4.0 to 5.0 l 5.0 to 6.0 aboved '
Laboratory trial batches below 2.0 2.0 to 3.0 3.0 to 4.0 4.0 to 5 0 above 5.0 j i i
j TABLE 4 l LOWEST 91-DAY STRENGTH TESTS .
Concrete Nos. 26, 27, & 28
- Specified Design Strength 5500 psi I
j Individual Average Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Sample (Ave. of 1
Test Sample Sample of 2 3 Cylinder No. 1 2 Samples) Tests i
26 205 5170 5080
)
5125 6088 26 2 06 6200 6340 6270 6062 26 207 6420 6350 6385 5927 26 365 5100 4180 4680 6542 26 396 5560 58 00 5680 . 6018 26 4 00 5180 5100 5140 6017 27 17 5770 5710 5740 5842 i
! 27 20 6070 6420 i 6245 6045
! 28 77 4620 6070 5345 6600 I
l - . . -. - - - . . .- - _ - - - . -. - .- .-
EXHIBIT A L
March 5, 1981 ,
~
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Region III 799 Roosevelt Road !
Glen Illyn, Illinois 60137 Atta: Mr. Ed Schweibinz Reactor Inspector (Projects)
Gentlemen:
We are enclosing a copy of related test records, meeting notes and grid layout sheets to identify areas and test locations which have honeycomb and cracx desi6 -
nations for some discontinuities found during nondestructive microseismic testing (Pulse Echo) of in-place concrete and which are inconsistent with discussions and conclusions in Revision 1 of Sargent & Lundy Report SL 3753. Also enclosed is a copy of meeting notes related to designations of discontinuities as major separa-i tion and a copy of Data Analysis Sheets which refer to discontinuities which can be attributed to construction joints that voyejd ngfied by the licedasee on 4 p. aced monothically. Meeting Pobruary 12, 1981 as being nonexistent becausIAJas notes and Data Analysis Sheets related to d* Q a=+ 4 a= cf **paration and uninte*-
pretable signal is also included.
Following is a listing of areas, test number locations, designstions of disconti-nuity, document identifying inconsistent designation of discontinuity, and refer-esce photos involved:
(Test No. Locations noted 'with ** have been selected for investigation by drilling or coring to verify that discontinuities designated as honeycomb, cracks, major separation, uninterpretable signal or discontinuities which can be attributed to construction joints are not honeycomb or cracks or are or such small magnitude as to be insignificant and are consistent with the information in 3evision 1 of Sargent & Lundy Report S13753)
Area Test No. Designation of Discontinuity Document Reference
& I4 cation Photo i
1 **J5 Honeycomb 8 3' Test Record k of 6/27/79 Ill OK Slight Honeycomb Top 8-10" Do 5 I11-6"N OK Slight Honeycomb Top 6" Do None i I12 Slight Honeycomb Do 6 l 33 Boneycomb Top 6-10" Do 8 1
2 Al Noneyeceb Top 6" Test Record 9 of 6/27/79 "A2 Crack (sic) 7" down(sic) from top Do 10 B2 Botton Honeycomb Do 11 i
l 3 **B1 Discontinuity can be attrib- Sheet 3-2 SA15 uted to Construction Joint b "B3 Multi Cracks (sic) Test Record SA178 of 7/17/79 Discontinuity can be attrib- Sheet B-3 uted to Construction Joint 4
\_ - - .- ._ . - . . - - . .- - - - - - - - - --
March 5, 1981
, Area Test N3. i .ignation of Diecc.tinuity L ument Reference
& Location Photo 8 "AT Boneycomb Test Record None
- AB of 6/28/79 Honeycomb Do None 9 A2 Honeycomb near face, near 1/3 Meeting Notes 47 inward and near backface, Crack of 8/23/79 near backside Honeycombing at surface, at Grid Layout Do 1/3 inward (sic), Crack and Sheet honeycombing @ back Crack Test Record Do of 6/29/79
- AS Crack Do h8
- C1 Crack at reflectin6 face, Meeting Notes 18h Some honeycomb on surface
~ of 8/23/79 C3 Crack Test Record 50 of 6/29/79 Ch Crack Do 51
- B3 Honeycomb (sic) Do 49 10 AT Slight Honeycomb Surface, OK Test Record Noce of 6/29/79 "L5 Honeycomb (sic) Do 53
- J3 Honeycomb (sic) Do None 13 "B3 Possible Crack f Center of slab Meeting Notes 71 of 8/23/79 16 **D5 Cracks \ vay, 3/h Honeycomb Grid Layout 61 at bottom face Sheet Honeycomb front and back Meeting Notes Do of 8/23/79 E6 Honeycomb on both faces Do 62 24 **A3 Crack 3/8 vay down, 3/h var Meeting Notes lh9 down, 7/8 vay down of 8/23/79
- Ak Major Separation k" from bottom Do 150 C3 Crack \ vay down, 3/h way down Do 151
- El Major Separation k" from bottom Do 152 Discontinuities can be attrib- Sheet B-18 used to Construction Joint
, "Fk Crack 3/8 vay down Meeting Notes 154 of 8/23/79 28 'a3 crack 3/8 var down Meeting Notes 11L of 8/23/79 '
5 Crack 3/8 var down Do 115 I i
- 6 & 6A Separation k,5" in Do 116 & 117 l Uniterpretable Signal Sheet 3-20 Do Uniterpretable Signal Sheet B-3 of 26 & 27 l
2/9/81 '
l **22 Honeycomb , Test Record 118 of 7/7/79 i
fh
Area Ta t N3. D^1gantion of Dicetatinuity D' umant Raforance
,,, s & Loc tion Photo l
33 **6"R of Ch Honeycomb -
Test Record None l (CS) of 7/6/79 j 36 **13 E Cracks (sic) Test Record None of 7/6/79 ;
ho **Ah Discontinuity can be attrib- Sheet B-28 SA251 & 252 uted to Construction Joint Drill locations should be adjusted to avoid first layer (s) of reinforcenent and drilling should be terminated if significant structural weakening would occur. Ahy determination of structural weakening to be determined by Sargent & Lundy.
Inspection of surfaces should be made at the following to verify that discontinu-ities designated as honeycomb or cracks are not honeycomb or cracks or are of such a==11 magnitude as to be insignificant and are consistent with the information in Revision 1 of Sargent & Lundy Reprot SL 3753:
Area 1 - Test No. Incation Ill, I11-6"N, I12, and B3 Area 9 - Core hole at Test No. Incation A2 Area 28 - Core hole at Test No. Location 5 Investigation of crack designations at Area 9 at Test No. Locations C3 and Ch should be,made if drilling at Test No. Incations A5 and ci are not adequately definitive, r
Investigation of crack designation at Area 2h at Test No. Location C3 should be made if drilling at Test No. Iccation A3 is not adequately definitive.
Inspection of surfaces at Area 9 at Test No. Iccation A2; at Area 10 at Test No.
Iocation A7; at Area 16 at Test No. Iacations D.5 and I6; and at Area 2 at Test No.
Locations Al and 32 vere made by and verified that surface discontinuity deeig-t nated as honeycomb was entrappe the discontinuities observed were consistent with explanations given and vit the information in Revision 1 of Sargent & Lundy Report SL 3753 The above listing conforms to the request made at the meeting on March 4,1981 at NRC Region III office and with the oral list given on March 3, h, and 5,1961.
The success of the above investigation vill enable us to remove the qualifying state-ment in the preliminary summary statement submitted orally on February 26, 1981 and discussed at the March 2,1981 meeting.
! Very trtdy yours,
- Alfred L. Parad Rolland C. Hamm, P.E.
Enclosures : As Listed l CC: Parameter, Inc. .
I I
2s
cw 3 /. 1 3
(jut 4 '- 4 d M'. V'. 3..-
tW rh ef. /di .T-l4 T)C' Yl1 F Dr. Michael A. Cassaro Professor of Civil 'kboA$@
e Engineering k %'
~
University of Louisville 1E flLE COPY .x *.,.
3r Louisville, KY 40208 '
(, A
Dear Dr. Cassaro:
" ' 2_
.- }'
This is in reply to your letter of March 26, 1981 regarding concrete at the Marble Hill plant site. This letter is supplemental to our letter to you dated March 20, 1981, wherein we expressed our engi-neering judgements and technical basis for considering that Report No. SL-3753, Rev. 1, meets NRC requirements regarding the statistical determination of the homogeneity of in place concrete.
The NRC reviewed your concerns outlined in both your September 26, 1980, and March 4, 1981 letters, and provided a response to you dated March 20, 1981. We believe that this response fully described an acceptable basis for our decision to conclude that all NRC re-quirements relative to the reported statistical testing methodology and other emperical evaluations of concrete quality have been met.
Based on all of the investigations and evaluative actions taken by the licensee and its agents, and the results of the independent investigation you participated in, NRC has concluded that the quality of the in place concrete at Marble Hill has been adequately assessed by the method described in the Sargent & Lundy report. To this extent, the NRC requirements have been met.
Our additional comments and elaborations in response to your letter of March 26, 1981, are outlined in attachment "A" to this letter.
Attachment "A" readdresses your major concerns as we understand them.
As you recall, subsequent to our receipt of your March 26, 1981 letter, we tried to arrange a meeting to discuss these issues with you, your associate, Dr. Alexander, and the NRC staff here in the Glen Ellyn office of the NRC. However, your client, 9- ',
potA-84-283
( O Aff ennnW m us
-- _= _ - - . . _ - - - _ . - . - - . - _ _ _ . = . - . _ _ _ _- _ - _ - - _ = - . = _ _
i . .
t l
Dr. Michael A. Cassaro g gg i
i "Save the Valley", declined to have you participate. Even so, we would be pleased to arrange a meeting between you, Dr. Alexander and our technical !
staff to discuss any items of further concern on your part regarding this matter.
1 Sincerely, I
1
.-a e b b[JamesG.Kepper 1
Director
Enclosure:
Attachment A cc w/ encl:
W. M. Petro, Executive Director Nuclear Project Management ;
! C. Kammerer, CA
, .J. H. Sniezek, II DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector, RIII LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae l Dave Martin, Office of '
Attorney General John R. Galloway, Staff Director, Environment, Energy and Natural i Resources Subcommittee !
l E. P. Martin, Wabash Valley j Power Association i Save the Valley Mr. Dattilo, Esquire ;
I l i i i l
I tNy/ '
- a\' M l g go u*' .~' mg '
i M bn[3ksk%d we. (NahoQ l
RIII RIII RIII RII RIII RIII, ski .a.v i 7
Schweibinz/db Little Williams e
$p)e$ ssard s.> {:/
Norelius H <a K pler 4
7/20/81 pa *l 7 , Davi7/4I/ 1 @l
- _ , _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - _ . . _ - -_ - . . - - - . 7_ _ '. I *-. -_
I i
ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY
- 1. Comment "Since the NRC has established the criteria, 95%
Pg. 1, Line 10 reliability with 95% confidence using equation 2, it must be recognized that this is a probabalistic equation implying no instrument or human error associated with the statistical approach."
Response NRC was and is fully cognizant of the potential.for human and instrument error. In additi6n to our March 20, 1981 response (Item 3 of Attachment A), it was for this reason that (1) each sample was tested at numerous locations, all of whicn overlapped. A total of 1,444 separate microseismic tests were performed for the 60 samples reported. Moreover, each of the 1,444 separate microseismic test loca-tions were usually tested at least twice (approximately 2,888 separate tests) before they were accepted for record. No credit was taken statistically for multiple testing, as such credit does not fit the assumptions of the model. However, multiple testing in conjunction with other procedural requirements does add considerable additional engineering con-fidence in the accuracy of the testing. This was an extraordinarily careful test. (2) Each test that showed a reflector was independently analyzed to determine if it was caused by a planned asbuilt condition. (3) If this analysis was not affirmative each area was cored or line drilled to destructively evaluate the subject test area. (4) At least 4 areas reported to be homogeneous were also cored.
(5) At least three independent organizations partici-pated in the evaluations. (6) The procedure was qualified and verified by destructive examination by the licensee with NRC participation prior to its implementation.
Subsequent to issuance of the report (SL-3753), more than 22 additional cores and/or line drilling (destruc-tive tests) were performed (at the request of the independent consultants) without identifying any errors in the test results previously established by the microseismic testing.
In other words, the documented procedure for the microseismic testing, approved and implemented at Marble Hill, provided more than adequate safeguards against human or instrument error in making deter-minations of the quality of the concrete. Not in
s e
e one instance has extensive destructive test shown the microseismic testing and evaluation to be in-adequate or in e: ror. For the 60 samples selected, over 1400 individual tests were taken for record and approximately 2800 such tests were done as a matter of procedure.
- 2. . Comment "For example, if the interpreter declared a " honeycomb" the same day he b:ised the qualification test and the honeycomb turned out to have significant bubbles in the concrete, then there appears to be reasonable room for error."
Response We believe that this comment has reference to the mistaken belief that early on during the testing,
" errors" of interpretation of microseismic test results were made and later changed without adequate basis. This was not the case at all. There were locations where Mr. Muenow changed designations of
" Honeycomb" to entrapped air. However, the change in tensinology was not a change in interpretation of the test records, but only a change in designation.
After the first few tests, and in order to better quantify the test results, the original use of the term " Honeycomb" in the field data sheets was refined to address "entr;ipped air" and " honeycomb" separately.
The definition of these terms.was presented in Report SL-3753, Rev. 1. The NRC independent consultants requested further justification for this change of
, terms. They identified 28 test locations which were examined as follows:
Seventeen locations were line drilled and viewed with an optical fiberscope. Four concrete cores were drilled and examined, five additional areas underwent visual surface examination, and two existing core holes were viewed with the fiber-scope.
l The results of the fiberscope examination supported Mr. Muenow's conclusion that no voids or honeycomb were present.
j To the extent of the above, there was no " reasonable room for error" identified, as the testing procedure
- and evaluation methodology precluded it.
i
- 3. Comment "It appears that no written qualification exists in the I
record at Marble Hill. A qualification record must be performed to evaluate if we have 95% reliability with 95% confidence."
i i l
E^
Response A qualification test and record for the microseismic testing technique does exist at Marble Hill and it demonstrates the adequacy of the microseismic test method equipment and interpretations. This activity was documented in NRC Report No. 50-546/79-07; 50-547/79-07 dated September 18, 1979. Furthermore, in response to the NRC consultants request, on February 9,1981, a transducer performance test was made on a one foot cube of concrete. An internal discontinuity was indicated. The block was sawed and the discontinuity as indicated by the instrument and its interpretation, was found. Dr. Cassaro and the NRC independent consultants witnessed this test.
The important question is: Has the test procedure failed to identify unacceptable internal voids, honeycomb or significant cracks? The answer is no, as proved by the qualification test, the many cores and line drilled holes described above and destructive tests of the concrete patches witnessed by NRC.
Since adequately conservative procedural safeguards to preclude error during microseismic examination and evaluation were specified and implemented, it is inappropriate and unnecessary (in NRC judgement) to hypothetically introduce an additional factor regarding the potential for systematic arror. The correctness of this judgement has been fully supported by the results of all destructive verification examinations to date.
- 4. Comment "As it now stands there is certainly less than 95%
reliability as outlined in the Mar:h 4 letter, and we believe that no verbiage will erase that reality only, clear statistics."
Response In general it is our conclusion that more than 95%
reliability with 95% confidence has been achieved.
It should be noted that neither the NRC nor the licensee and its agents relied on pure statistics
(" clear statistics") to comprehensively evaluate the concrete. A substantial amount of engineering judgement was used to conservatively bias the sample selection. No advantage was taken for this bias in establishing the statistical methodology. From the purely statistical perspective, this bias may be considered as an error. However, its effect is to emphasize examination of those areas of the concrete, which experience shows to have a higher probability for defects.
L
?
t In specific response to Dr. Alexander's comments in your March 4,1981 letter, our judgements and opinions are as follows:
- a. The O.C. curve is used primarily for in process control of production to assess risks associated with various inspection plans. This curve can be constructed as Dr. Alexander has done from Equation (2) in the SL-3753 report.
This curve was not included in the report because it is not relevant to the discussion. Our goal was not to study variability of confidence. We intended to use a procedure by which 5% or more defective units in the lot would be detected by the tests with 95% confidence.
- b. The determination of quality'of in place concrete once the entire population is known can be achieved using Equation (1) As mentioned above, it is intended to test the hypothesis about quality of concrete using Equations (1) and (2).
The acceptance or rejection of this hypothesis at a given confidence level depends on the population size, sample size, and the number of defectives in the sample provided that sampling is random. Obviously, biasing the sample to favor congested areas in this situation is an engineering judgement to provide more conservatism for which no credit was taken. Prior to performing tests, more than 60 test areas (units) had been identified. Since the first 60 tests revealed no unacceptable unit, the hypothesis in question was tested and no reject was identified at a 95%
level of confidence.
The use of Equations (1) and (2) to deduce from observations an upper bound on the percent defective, p, is correct and appropriate. The Marble Hill case is an infinite population of which 60 random or conservatively biased areas were tested and no defectives were found. The conclusion is that we are 95% confident that the percentage of defectives in the population does not exceed 5%. This is statistically correct.
- c. Sargent & Lundy's definition of reliability is widely accepted in civil engineering practice; see reference cited p. 5 of Vol. I, SL-3753, Revision 1. There is no ambiguity in consid-ering the reliability as pertaining to the in-place concrete.
- d. In regard to the effects of errors on the confidence level, operational and observational reasons have been presented to show that from an engineering standpoint, the pulse-echo technique and the data interpretation used at Marble Hill is extremely reliable at indicating unacceptable internal voids, honeycomb or significant cracks.
This implies that the probability, e n, in Equation (b) of Dr. Alexander's addendum is negligibly small or very close to zero. Referring to Dr. Alexander's table, a 3% error (which is conservative for this testing procedure) results in a confidence level of 95%. The conservatism built into the program more than makes up for this "hypcthetical" error. For example, an additional five areas waere sleeves were going to be cored were tested by pulae-echo and cor'es taken and reported in SL-3753. The confidence level associated with testing 65 areas with no defects found in the sample is 96.4%.
This supports the conclusion of the SL-3753 report that Marble Hill concrete is acceptable with 95% reliability and 95% confidence level.
6 L
- [/ ,: - E ' 'J I
?
W .
November 18. 1981 253gg l
MEMORANDUM POR: J. H. Snimemir. Director. Division of Resident and l n=~4 - 1 Reactor Inspection. Program Staff. BQ )
FROM: C. E. Nore14==, D1 rector, Division of 7m:4 - ring and Technie=1 Inspection. RIII SUMECTs MAREI.E HILL - BRADFORD/DIRCES MDC OF OCTOBER 23. 1981 As requested by the subject memo, attached is an explanation of the staff's h==4= for e - 1 d ing that the actions taken regarding concrete at {
l Marble Hill were conservative and acceptable. This information was fazed to your staff last week.
C. E. Noralius, Director Division of Engineering and Technical Inspection
Attachment:
As Er.ated gia, s c; ic
.. e
- g IYO'/.9 C jy;;% ,l u.s. ...., c .. . . ,
i
, c. , ca .. 4
% s
')'
/
~% 21., s -
I
, FoIA 2.03 .
ars.i i e ,v a u a t i i 1 6 i')
{'. -
' ' RIII T(# '
f rr.ce> RIIL.
[
f
, RII Pawt > .S. c.h.w. .e. . .i.d.q.z. b. .l. . L. .i..it.iams i
RIII,
.t. . 'e. . . . .Nobeli.d,s,
. . [
. . . f. .
I!/o l
I "E > 11/18/81 - '
I
l
. \
i l
. I i . .
Synopsis of Staffs Basis for Acceptance of Concrete Quality Corrective Action j 1.
Background:
I i
', In June and July 1979, NRC confirmed allegations of improperly repaired concrete imperfections at Marble. Hill. The imperfections ,
were identified generally as concrete consolidation problems (honey- 1 l comb and voids), and improper repair (patching) of these imperfec-tions.
As a result of NRC inspections and with the collaboration of an I alleger in June and July 1979, NRC confirmed that:
1 1
- a. An excessive amount of honeycomb and air voids had occurred. i Approximately 4000 concrete patches existed.
- b. In many instances these imperfections were improperly repaired, and/or unacceptable materials were used for the repair.
I
- c. Quality control records traceable to the repairs were either nonexistent or otherwise ir. adequate.
4
- d. Personnel responsible for <uch repairs were inadequately trained and supervised.
- e. The licensee was not in control nor sufficiently aware of the above circumstances.
As a result of the above findings, NRC III issued two Immediate Action Letters on June 27, 1979 and July 23, 1979, respectively. In
- summary, these documents required that (1) all safety related concrete
- placement be suspended; and (2) all concrete be subjected to surface
! and v'olumetric examination. The June 27, 1979 IAL specifically in-structed that the licensee ". . . randomly select and test a statis-tical sample, representative of both congested and other concrete j . volumes to assure with 95% reliability and 95% confidence level that -
1 concrete quality meets requirements." Prior'to the above instructions l NRC III had informed the licensee that based on extensive confirma-I tion of the alleged improper repair of concrete patches, all existing concrete patches must be removed and repaired regardless of any obser-vable (surface) evidence that the patch met quality requirements.
This position was taken because of the high percentage of rejectable conditions identified by NRC.
- 2. Major Understandings that Provided Basis for Corrective Action
- a. The principal concrete quality deficiency identified in June i and July of 1979 was honeycomb and air voids. The nature of i
concrete placement is such that these imperfections nearly
- always occur in volumes which are (1) heavily congested with j embedded steel; and (2) adjacent to the concrete forms wherein most of the congestion occurs.
- b. There was no basis to consider that any existitg concrete repair was done in accordance with code and design requirements.
c.
Concrete compressive strengths were known to be considerably above design requirements. This indicated that with the noted exception, concrete quality control was reasonably adequate.
NRC III Requirements and Licensee Actions and Results
- 1. The staff's first action was to suspend (with licensee concurrence) all safety related concrete placement and repair.
2.
The staff's second action was to inform the licensee that all exist-ing (July 1979) concrete patches must be removed and reworked. This effort was known at that time to involve approximately 4,000 separate concrete patches ranging in surface dimensions from several square feet to several square yards.
From an engineering and structural assessment point of view, it was and is the staff's consideration that extensive destructive examina-tion (as manifested by removal of all existing concrete patches) constitutes the principal basis for our ultimate judgment that the concrete is substantially free of unacceptable imperfections.
The licensee initiated the removal (chipping out) of concrete patches under the direct surveillance of NRC in June and July 1979. To date over 3,000 such patches have been removed, examined and repaired without discovery of any condition that is in conflict with any other portion of the previous assessments and evaluation of concrete at the site.
The foundation for this work (patch removal) was established princi-pally by the licensee's " Construction and Material Verification Program Final Report", Section 5, " Category I Concrete Surface Irregu-larities" dated May 15, 1981. The subject program was required by NRC Order of August 15, 1979. We consider this program to be very conservative, in that it required identification of imperfections not normally required by code requirements.
- 3. In addition, as referenced above, the IAL of June 27, 1979 also required that the licensee statistically examine the interior volume of concrete in both congested and noncongested volumes by a nondes-tructive test technique to provide 95% confidence and 95% reliability that concrete quality meets requirements. The selection of the 95%
confidence /95% reliability criteria was determined from the collective best judgment of the Region III staff. It was considered to be reason-ably attainable from a testing standpoint and prudent from an engi-neering point of view to provide increased assurance of the adequacy of the plant structures.
This examination did not include any obviously imperfect areas such as air voids, honeycomb and patches at the surface. It was and is our engi-neering consideration that such anomalien generally occur with evidence of their presence visible at the observable surface of concrete because this is generally the location of congestion and obstructions which are l
the principal causes of these anomalies in concrete. Nevertheless, it was our consideration that to be more comprehensive, this nonde-structive testing would be a useful complement to the destructive examination involved in the removal of approximately 4,000 concrete patches and the concurrent examination of the design, engineering and other quality control parameters of the concrete. While it was viewed as important, this test is but a part of the overall assess-ment of concrete and is of less importance from an engineering point of view than any of the other three principal actions taken, i.e.
destructive examination, surface examination and concrete quality control records examination.
By way of summary, the licensee and its agents developed a statistical program using a nondestructive test technique called Micro-Seismic Testing (Pulse-Echo) to accomplish this task.
This program was initiated in July 1979. NRC witnessed the demon-stration of the capabilities of the nondestructive test technique on concrete samples with a representative degree by embedded congestion and imperfections. The licensee demonstrated that the technique was capable of reliably detecting concrete imperfections when they existed.
Not in any instance of test demonstration, did the technique fail to detect an anomally if it was there. In all cases the interpretations provided by the technicians were in reasonable agreement with the observed condition upon examination and destruction of the test samples or concrete patches whose condition was previously unknown.
The approved nondestructive test procedure for this work contained the following safeguards to preclude error.
- a. Each sample was tested at numerous locations, all of which over-lapped. A total of 1,444 separate microseismic tests were performed for the 60 samples reported. Moreover, each of the 1,444 separate microseismic test locations were usually tested at least twice (approximately 2,888 separate tests) before they were accepted for record. No credit was taken statistically for multiple testing, as such credit does not fit the assumptions of the model. However, multiple testing in conjunction with other procedural requirements does add considerable additional engineer-ing confidence in the accuracy of the testing. This was, in our view, an extraordinarily careful test.
- b. Each test that showed a reflectar was independently analyzed to determine if it was caused b, a planned "as built" condition.
- c. If this analysis w<s not cffirmative, esch area was cored or line drilled to destructive'y evaluate the subject test area.
- d. At least four areas reported to be homogeneous were also cored.
- e. At least three independent organizations participated in the evaluations.
- f. The procedure was qualified and verified by destructive examin-ation by the licensee with NRC participation prior to its imple-mentation.
In other words; the documented procedure for the microseismic testing, approved and implemented at Marble Hill, provided adequate safeguards against human or instrument error in making determinations of the quality of the concrete. As a matter of perspective, no industry codes, standards or standard regulatory requirements approach the rigor and redundancy as manifested by the NRC III requirements out-lined above. They are considered to have been extraordinarily con-servative. The licensee's statistical sampling methodology and its implementation, are documented in the licensee's Report SL-3753, Revision 1, dated November 21, 1980. In summary, the licensee developed a sequential sampling plan to achieve 95% confidence with 95% reliability. As a result of the implementation of this program, 60 samples were tested without identification of any rejectable condition. A total of 15 concrete cores (destructive tests) were taken to backup the Pulse Echo testing. Not one core showed de-fective concrete. The NRC Independent Consultants requested 21 of the 60 test locations to be additionally drilled or cored and viewed with an optical fiberscope. None of the 21 areas showed defective concrete. They were all in agreement with the findings of the microseismic (Pulse Echo) findings.
It was our engineering judgment that the 60 samples tested should be biased to include more data from areas where Civil Engineering experi-ence indicates a greater probability of defects existing. To this extent more samples were taken from areas judged to be more congested than would have been selected had the sample locations been purely random. Fifty percent of the areas were considered congested. No defective concrete was identified in spite of this deliberate bias.
Thus, although the pure statistical assurance may have been perturbed, the engineering confidence was increased, i.e. the test was more conservative.
This memo is occasioned by the identification of an inconsequential error in the statistical plan developed by the licensee as identified by Professor Cassaro and confirmed by Remick/ Commission letter dated September 10, 1981.
We have reviewed the September 10, 1981 OPE memorandum to the Com-mission reporting the results of OPE's ceview of the IE Director's Denial.
The staff concurs in OPE's analysis of the Sargent & Lundy (S&L) sequential sampling plan. The staff has concluded, as OPE has, that had a single-stage plan been implemented, the observed results (no defectives in 60 tests) would have provided the required 95% reli-ability and 95% confidence level. Had the licensee stated their plan differently and specified a single stage program, the exact l
l <
l
same testing would have led to the conclusion that the quality of the concrete has been adequately demonstrated. That is, NRC re-quirements for this aspect of the overall assessment have been met.
Based on the foregoing, NRC requirements have been met. Further -be noted discrepancy in the full statistical plan (90% confidence /95%
reliability vs. 95% confidence /95% reliability) has no impact on the staff's conclusion regarding concrete adequacy, as the rigorous identification of 60 defect free samples precluded it.
Based on the foregoing it is our engineering judgment that the con-servatism required by NRC III regarding this portion of the licensee evaluation of in place concrete remains intact.
- 4. . Surface Examination NRC III required visual examination of all concrete. All accessible concrete surfaces was examined for defects. This was necessary be-cause of the extensive occurrence of superficial concrete imperfec-tions and the lack of adequate records of their identification and repair. The licensee has completed and exhaustively evaluated this aspect of our requirements. Their effort is documented in Section 5, of the " Construction and Material Verification Program Final Report",
dated May 15, 1981. It is our engineering judgment that this re-quirement was conservative as it did not rely on existing records, many of which were reasonably adequate, but lacked the additional rigorous criteria for judging the adequacy of the surface condition of the concrete. Subsequent repairs based on these findings have been extensive and properly controlled.
- 5. Record Examination NRC III required that all previous concrete quality control records regarding material purchase, concrete mixing, transportation, place-ment, curing, and testing be rigorously re-examined, including pre-vious NRC inspection findings. The licensee completed this task to NRC RIII satisfaction and documented the effort in their "Construc-tion and Material Verification Program Final Report" dated May 15, 1981. The other related sections of this report are Section 2 (Reinforcing steel), Section 6 (Mechanical Cadweld Splices), Section 9 (Checking of Category I Back Fill), and Section 12 (Category 1 Concrete Pour Package, Concrete Constituent Materials and Embedded Metals Review).
As is demonstrated by NRC III inspection records subsequent to issuance of the order, our examination of all of these aspects has been exceptionally rigorcus. The licensee has aptly demonstrated the existence of or the capability to achieve quality levels commensurate with requirements in all areas. (See RIII inspection report No. 50-546/81-18.)
4 In our opinion the evaluation of all four of these major facets of the concrete quality verification program does comprehensively !
demonstrate the adequacy and conservatism inherent in our basis for accepting the licensee's actions to address the NRC concern regarding j the adequacy of safety related concrete at Marble Hill.
l 6. Separate from NRC III efforts in this regard, an independent group of engineers which included the participation of representatives of "Save the Valley" (a public interest group) provided an evaluation
- cf the Marble Hill concrete quality, engineering design parameters, and as-built condition. This review included the Itcensee and NRC ;
i III activities in regard to this matter. Their finding is provided ;
in report titled " Review of the Evaluation of Concrete" at Marble i.
' Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2, Report IE-124 dated
, June 25,1981.
4 This report concluded in part that:
" Based on the investigation made, the concrete structures at Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, were found to have l been constructed of very good quality concrete material (of higher i
' strength than required or specified), but with concrete placement which failed to meet requirements.
, Based on the numerous investigations made and a comprehensive review 1
of the SL-3753 Report, Revision 1, along with the inspection of surfaces and the findings from the line drilling and/or coring of SL-3753 test areas, we are able.to verify that internal concrete in i
the safety-related Category I structures of the Marble Hill Nuclear j Plant consists of homogeneous concrete with a 95% reliability and 95% confidence level. This, combined with the localized critical structural. strength demands yields, a confidence and reliability i level above 95% for structural adequacy. Thus, the quality of the
- internal concrete' in the structures is acceptable.
i
! Based on our investigation of a selected number of visible surface
- defects, identified by the licensee in the Construction Verification
! Pr~ogram No. SPP-5, we are able to verify that the surface preparations r
! made and repair of the concrete patch and repair areas observed were "
consistent with good construction practice. !
! Based on the review of information furnished relating to the examina-l tion of concrete surfaces under the Construction Verification Program i No. SPP-5, we conclude that the program is very extensive and thorough l and should identify all concrete patches and repair areas. Based on
- review of procedures for repair and evaluation of concrete patches
( and repair areas, we are able to verify that they are consistent with
- good construction practice. Further, if the procedures are followed i and high standards of workmanship are maintained, the structural integrity and biological shielding requirements of the concrete l structures should be met."
i
i .
I t
- 7. Finally, it is our engineering judgment that overall conservatism is i manifest in all of the staff's actions and requirements for evalua- !
l tion of concrete quality at Marble Hill. Moreover, the independent
,' consultant findings support our conclusions.
e 6
P I
~
l i l 1 > ,
t l
k -s i
J l'
i i
i i
3
- 8 g
8.. tJillTED STATES f p erg%';
NUCLEAR HEGULATORY CCMMISSION s ..t P -f' i W A5HW GT ON. D.C. 205M ik.. d.,Y 8
'* * .*Q *
, * . .?
October 23, 1981 0.*FICE OF THE CUP.'EIS3tctn ER n .. .
~
4 MEi'O TO: Williara J. Dircks Exscutive Director
, for Operation:
Fcreest Remick, Utrcctor Office of Evaluation
- /%./ e.
. FRO:i: Peter A. radford 56KCT: :'A90LE MILL.- STAFF REQUIREMENTS 10:0 QF OCT03ER 5.1981 SECY-61-44$ . .
Wh:n this iscuo is r cubaitte.d to the Cor.nis'siod I Wauld lika to sea a short explanation of wh/ t:1a staff censidars it: acceptsnca crit 2Fb to ba conservative. I ',;culd also like to saa CPI's avaluation of thi:
e::;1ar.:tien. . ,
Attac.W. ant:
Stcff Raquirc ents 15c0 of 10/5/31.
cc: Chainc.an Palladino Cc:.7.1ssiener Gilinaky
- Cc.missicner Ahearne Cccaissioner Roberts .
Samue.1 J. Chilk *
. Lt.cnard Bichwit
,s' ,
l
( .
g
{DR ADOCM'05666346 PDR
O g IM R. 2OI15E REFER TO 581-443 gP,, .y h>o UNITED 5TATES
'? %
" ~
T' NUCL2AG REGULATORY COMMIS31CM
- 3 'WJ.S h, s.r e:a y% gT.5 f.,"$ pAssenctoN, D.C.20555
%.? D /
October 5, 1981 .
C'F.9CE C.S 'DIC .
f.EC A ETARY MIM.ORANDR1 FOR: ' William J. Dircks, E::ccutive Directer for Operations FRO 1: Samuel J. Chilk, SecretaY 'Qh SU3 JECT:. SECY-81-445 - REVIE;7 OF "CTOR'S DE17IAI,OF'2.'206 PETITICE ^
W, ' -
.; ... . .m . .~,. . . . . :
.;ly. _
This is to advise you that the C-4 asion (with all Cc2missioners
.- app;cving) has decidad that the staff should 'ex:usine ,with all pt tias whether the assurance achiavable from the test ,
and evaluation pregrJ:.m at Marble Elli meets NRC criteria in light of Save .the Valley's July Addandum a.nd OPE's memorandum ci Septambrar 10, 1931. - .
The Offica of the Director, Inspection and Enforeme.ent was inf rned of this action by telephone on Octobsr 1,1981.
It ia reccested that you ' respond to this roguest by c.c.h. November 13, 1931. O- *
- rI t . .
cc: Chairman Palladino .
4 C-C 2missioner Gilinsky Cormissioner Bradford Cor;:iissioner Ahearne Ccrmiccioner Robarts CCc '
OPE Director, I&E Chie'f, Dccksting a Serrics 3rsnch, SECY '
CC'CZ CT:
, 3. W. McGregor (SECY)' -
- 41113 .
a ,
t /
I s t
l l
l 8111240956 Siii 1m
"" A.,an 93000 546 A PDR
_ _ , _ _ . _ - - _ .-. . , _ - - ~ . - - . _ , _
s 3,201814011 UQ FIQCOPy 6 %
., ghO\f' p'Q PUBLIC ,
SERVICE f INDIANA D*c'=b*r l' 198 gg,@Yh*'2 s-PSI /NRC-0008 c,,
S. W. Shields -
' <] j 7.
I ' %.h '
Senor Vice Presx2ent -
Nuclear Divisaon Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Docket Nos.: STN 50-546 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation STN 50-547 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Construction Permit Nos.:
Washington, D. C. 20555 CPPR - 170 CPPR - 171 MARBLE HILL NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2
Dear Mr. Denton:
In the Consolidated Description of the Marble Hill Quality Assurance Progra=, Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (PSI) committed to ANSI N45.2.12-1977 and ANSI N!.3.2.13-1976. Regulatory Guides 1.144-Revision 1 (9/80) and 1.123-Revision 1 (7/77), respectively, endorse these standards. PSI hereby informs you that it is updating its com-mit=ect and henceforth will comply with the aforementioned regulatory guides. The next revision of the Marble Hill Project Quality Assurance Manual will include the information in this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely, h dest /l S. W. Shields b LGY/bak ip?4443 cc: V. Stello, Jr.
J.
E.
G. Keppler R. Schweibinz, P. E.
QgCf J. J. Harrison ()3 00:?YSENTREGION Y'~- ~
~?Memme PDR 1P i: ,
l P. O. Box 190, New Wasnington, Indiana 47162 812. 289.1000
'. g
~
,/ %, UNITED STATES y ,- g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- a REGION 111 e, f 7se noosavstr noAo
%, ,# atsN ALLYN. ILUNol$ e0137 July 20, 1982 Docket No. 50-546 Docket No. 50-547 Public Service of Indiana ATIN: Mr. S. V. Shields Senior Vice President Nuclear Division Post Office Box 190 New Washington, IN 47162 Gentlemen:
This refers to the management meeting held by Mr. A. B. Davis and NRC representatives with you and other representatives of Public Service of Indiana on March 10, 1982, at the to review the results of the NRC's evaluation of the utility's regulatory perfermance in connection with NRC Manual Chapter 0516 - Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) and covers the period July 1, 1980 to September 30, 1981.
A pteliminary copy of the SALP Report was provided for your review in advance of our meeting. The final SALP Report with minor format changes and corrections is enclosed along with the written comments you provided subsequent to the meeting (Enclosure 2).
After our March 10, 1982, meeting and receipt of your March 17, 1982, comments, the SALP Board reconvened on March 18, 1982, to raraview the performance assessment made during the original Board Meeting.
This reconvened meeting was held (1) because some Region III staff members, who were not present at the original meeting, believed all relevant informa-tien was not considered in the SALP assessment, and (2) to consider comments made by your organization during the March 10 meeting.
1 PDR ADOCK 05000546 ,
A PDR
- Public Service of Indiana 2 July 20, 1982 In light of your comments and additional information provided by regional staff members, the Board reassessed its concern regarding the limited con-struction experience operating under restructured management controls and Quality Assurance Program. The Board concluded, based upon observations presented by staff members, that significant construction activities had been completed during the assessment period to demonstrate the ability of the restructured management controls and quality assurance program to adequately assure the quality of construction at the site, on this -ner'"=4mn *ka me#ne=mne= mamen===nts of P"ality Ammuranen -no- am sna co--- ----- --a new., s,5.ev.Rm Int ed St ructures were chaneed fen =
Cate '* . Additional details on significant changes to
- car ssess e are in Enclosure 1.
In addition to the evaluations and recommendations made by the SALP Board and contained in Enclosure 1 and the sinclosed SALP Report, I wish to give you my overall observations and assessment relative to the utility's regulatory performance during the assessment period:
- 1. With respect to the SALP ratings, the Regional SALP Board views the Category 2 rating as the rating which it anticipates most licensees will achieve. Category 1 rating is given only for superior perform-ance. A Category 3 rating is given when the licensee's peeformance is minimally acceptable and increased licensee management and NRC attantion is warranted.
- 2. It is my view that the overall regulatory performance of Public Service of Indiana has improved significantly during this SALP period and is more than adequate to carry out an acceptable con-struction program. Management attention to the project has resulted in an effective organization, as well as effective management systems and procedures. A definite turn around in performance has resulted.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter, the SALP Repo rt , and your March 17, 1982, letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
l
, l'
- Public Service of Indiana 3 July 20, 1982 No reply to this letter is required; however, should you have say questions concerning these matters, we will be pleased to discuss thee with you.
Sincerely.
Original signed by James G. Kapplar James G. Keppler Regional Administrator
Enclosures:
- 1. Significant Changes to the SALP Board Assessment
- 2. Inspection Reports No. 50-546/82-07 and -
No. 50-547/82-07 cc w/encis:
W. M. Petro, Executive Director Nuclear Project Management DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident Inspector, RIII LeBoeuf, I.amb, I.eiby & MacRae Dave Martin, Office of Attorney -
General -
John R. Galloway, Staff Director Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittae E. P. Martin, Wabash Valley Power Association Thomas M. Dattilo, Save the Valley l
RIII. RIII# R d
\ RII RI I RIII
- Qas W t' Tambling/sv lsar \ gNorel us il d avis K pler f \g '# 1 \QV r e ab
-.. ~- . . . - - .. = - -
l .
l i ,.-t
- i -
1 ENCLOSURE 1 i
} Significant Changes to the SALP Board Assessment of Licensee Performance :
- for Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station.
j General ,
i j Subsequent to the SALP Meeting with the licensee on March 10, 1982, the j
SALP Board reconvened on March 18, 1982, to review additional information f concerning licensee performance. !
3 The SALP Board performance ratings of the licensee during the February 12 f i 1982, Board Meeting were predicated upon the significant improvements that
- j the licensee had made in response to the August 15, 1979, Order; however, ,
l the licensee had not adequately demonstrated its ability to perform under !
, extensive construction conditions. The Board at that time took the position j that there should be additional evidence of extensive experience under the restructured management control systems before Category 1 rating could be j
} assigned in Quality Assurance and Containment and Other Safety Related !
j Structures functional areas.
The Board was subsequently made aware that there was evidence of eatensive emperience with the new management control systems. This information was made available by the resident inspector and several regional based inspec-t tors who had participated in the inspection effort that lead to the lifting
) of the 1979 Order on February 12, 1982. Supplied with this information, the l Board reassessed it's rating of licenses performance and nede the following changes.
I Enclosure 1 to the SALP Soard Chairman's letter to the licensee.
The Board retracts the statement in the first paragraph of Enclosure 1 l
that states "Accordingly, a question still exists in regard to the ability of the restructured management controls and Quality Assurance Program to '
] adequately assure the quality of construction as site construction 3 activities return to normal." However, the Board still feels that continued 4 l aggressive licensee management attention to quality is warranted to ensure that positive results continue as construction effort returns to its normal
, level in all areas.
I The Board no longer feels that limited construction experience is a major
- issue and changes its recommendation to implementation of the normal '
j inspection program, e'. :
l Performance Analyses I
- 1. Soils and Foundations j- c. Board Recossendetions The Board recommendation is changed to None.
J i
1 j . .
I
- i. t g
= _ . . . . . - _ , , . . . , . . . - . _ ~ _ _ . _ . _ , , _ . . . . _ . _ . . , _
, a g 2. Cone'4~-a* -mms aarety-netated structuie,
- b. Conclusion T' - '
7
- - - - - --- ua --- wu="a=w ' sum va'=av'i e wv - mau =
- '-~
t' ' ._i _ _ _ - . . . . . . . . . .. .uwaal enn.enur*4mm rnea4 4nn. um.' satisfied-
- c. Board Recommendation The Board no longer feels that limited construction experience is an issue and changes its recommendation to Laplementation of the normal inspection program.
- 3. &
4 Piping Systems and Supports and Safety-Related Components
- c. Board Recommendations The Board no longer feels that limited construction experience is a major issue and changes its recommendation to implementation of the normal inspection program.
- 9. N
- b. Conclusion L, -- '
..__ .. w....v., . .. . _
a -
>>>..,__., mw.. ..,_-- - - ' -
- tual
- c. Board Recommendation The Board no longer feels that limited construction experience is an issue and changes its recommendation to implementation of the normal inspection program.
V. Sueporting Data and Summaries H. Other (Observation) -
The Board no longer feels that limited construction experience is a major issue in assessing the performance of the licensee.
This concern has been satisfied.
2
. _- ._= _ - ;___ . ~ - _- - ~ _ - - .-- - - - _ - - . ~ . - _ .
'dN
.* s'/'
., f **%'o, '
UNITED STATES !
3 ' ~', NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
2 i REGION Hi
) .
- no noosevetr noAo
\.....,/ otsu su.vu. itumois som } ,
OCT 4 59 i t l Docket No. 50-546 i Docket No. 50-547 I
i Public Service of Indiana
! ATTN: Mr. S. W. Shields Vice President - Electric System i 1000 East Main Street i Plainfield, IN 46168 i
j Gentlemen:
This refers to the special inspection conducted by Messrs. C. C. Williams, ,
D. W. Hayes, K. R. Naidu, G. A. Phillip and G. T. Maxwell of this office on July 26, 27, 31 and August 1-3, 1979, of activities at the Marble Hill ,
Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, authorized by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-170 and No. CPPR-171 and to the discussion of our findings with you, Messrs. L. A. Crews. F. R. Hodges and others of your staf f at j the conclusion of the inspection. ,
i ;
, The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined .
j during the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a '
selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel. This special inspection focused on the [
, status and effectiveness of the methodology and implementing organizations for construction management, quality assurance / quality control and engineering.
3 During this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in
- noncompliance with NRC requirements, as described in the enclosed
- Appendix A. l i
This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of -
! the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. '
Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office within thirty days of your receipt of this notice a written statement or explanation in reply, l including for each ites of noncompliance: (1) corrective action taken and l l the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to avoid further
! noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
) In accordance with Se,ction 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,
- Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter, the enclosures,
! and your response to this letter will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room, except as follows. If the enclosures contain information 4
{
s Tota-M93 '
,qW'
) .
K 3%O !
4
OCT Public Service of Indiana =79
~
that you or your contractors believe to be proprietary, per our discussion, please notify this office by telephone within five days of your receipt of this letter.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely, James G. Keppler Director
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix A, Notice of Violation
- 2. II Inspection Reports No. 50-566/79-11 and No. 50-547/79-11 cc w/encls:
R. M. Brown, Construction Project Superintendent Central Tiles Reproduction Unit NRC 20b PDR Local PDR NSIC TIC LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Dave Martin, Office of the Attorney General Royal Beckwith, Assistant Director of Inspections, National Board of B&PVI Robert R. Johnson, State of Indiana, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Board RIII .
RIII RI RIII RII RIII
- t. J.
ass /sr H yes Fio 111 us Kep a Sc weibinz Maxwell #1 N u p* 10/3/79
_ - __ ... _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ . _ - ._..._-_ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
i l ,
i t
j Appendia A !
NOTICE Oy VI0I.ATION f l i Public Service of Indiana Docket No. 50-546 1
Docket No. 50-547 j' '
i 2
Based on the results of the NRC inspection conducted on July 26, 27, 31 "
l and August 1-3, 1979, it appears that certain of your activities were in 3 neecompliance with NRC requirements, as noted below. These items are t l considered infractions. I j 1. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendia 3, Criterion II requires, in part, that I j applicants shall establish a quality assurance program at the earliest l time. "This program shall be documented . . . and shall be carried l
] out throughost plaat life in accordance with those policies, procedures, t 1
or instructions." It also requires that the licensee's quality assurance program take into account the need for skills to attain
[
l the required quality and the need for verification of quality by '
inspection. It requires the program to provide the necessary training }
i of personnel perfornias activities affecting quality and requires j 1
the program to provide the control over activities affecting quality. :
The Narble Mill PSAR Chapter 2, Section 1.7 and Chapter 17, Section
- 17.1.2 ceamits Public Service of Indians to Regulatory Guide 1.54 '
and thereby ANSI N45.2.6 (1973). ANSI N45.2.6 Section 3.1 outlines the educational and esperience requirements for personnel performing j
inspections and tests or who participate in approval of procedures, the evaluation of test data and the control of related quality l i
records. The Marble Mill Generating Station Construction Managensat
!', Manual Procedure CMP 3.10 and PSI QA Procedure QAP 6.8 address the educational and esperience requirements for FSI QA/QC personnel.
] Further, the Marble Bill PSAR Chapter 17, Section 17.1.1.1 states in j part; "The PSI Quality Assurance Construction Group will be responsible
- j for assuring that . . . activities perfogued by the construction j
contractors are in compliance . . . This group will reside at the site, will perform surveillance of quality and quality related activities, . . . control quality verification records . . . perform receipt inspection . . . The personnel in this group have "stop-work" authority to prevent unsatisfactory work . . . ."
4 Contrary to the above, Public Service of Indiana has not sufficiently implemented its quality assurance program at the Narble Mill plaat site.
For eaamples ;
j a. The assagement support, qualifications, numbers, and. methods of ,
i 1
operations of the site QA/QC group have been inadequate to !
assure that estensive licensee and contractor acacompliances !
have been identified,, documented and corrected,
! j i
f t v
l
,1 . -
i i
h lf hiiS V I oho V \
{ 7 .
)
h
i j ,
Appendix A i e b. At least 25 of 29 assbers of the site based Quality Control Organisation do not have sufficient QA/QC and construction l I
1 .
emperience to qualify them for their current QC organisation
- assignments and to this eatent PSI procedures for personnel qualifications (CNP-3.10 and QAP 6.8) are nonconforming as j implemented.
- c. N PSI Marble Hill Generating Station Construction Management Procedure Number CMP 3.7 which provides instructions for "stop-work" -
authority does not provide adequate independent authority to the QC orgaatzation, inspectors and engineers to prevent unsatis-
' factory work and assure control over subsequest resolution of :
identified nonconferesaces, i l 2. 10 CFR 50, Appendia B, Criterios IX states, in part, that " Measures j
shall be established to assure that special processes, including welding, ;
. . . are controlled and accomplished by qualified personnel using '
- qualified procedures in accordance with applicable codes, standards, specifications, criteria, and other special requirements." ,
Paragraph 17.1.9.6 of Section 17 of the Narble Mill PSAR states la i ;
part that procedures, equipment and personnel connected with special ,
processes are qualified as applicable is accordance with code, standards, ,
and specifications or when necessary, supplementary procedures. '
i Contrary to the above, it was deterstaed that, even though Chicago :
Bridge and Iron Weld Procedure Specification E7018/7303, Revision 1 dated June 20, 1977, underwent reviews by various organisations,
- i. including Sargest & I, undy, the reviews failed to identify the omission ,
j ;
of the weld technique to be used for passes other thaa vertical up and everhead, and included the sans omission in subsequest revisions. }
This weld procedure was being used to weld safety-related tanks on t the site.
. I
) 3. '10 CFR 50, Appendia S. Criterios IV, states, is part, that " Measures shall be established to control esterials", . . . which do not conform to requirements . . . h ee measures shall include, as appropriate, i
procedures for identification, documentation, . . . disposition, and i
4 actification to the affected organisations."
I N Marble Mill PSAR Chapter 17, Section 17.1.15 reiterates the '
same requirement and further states that " PSI shall verify adherence '
i te procedures and instructions for control of nonconforming asterials i
. . . through audits of principal contractors . . . ." .
- l l I I
l
Appendix A Contrary to the above, on August 1,1979, it was determined by record review that Cherne nonconformance report number 6.94 involving piping material certification records, had been voided without adequate basis and made reference to other documentation which did not justify or provide a reason for voiding this NCR. Moreover, the licensee's representative could provide no other basis for the
" disposed" status of this nonconformance report.
- 4. 10 CTR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IVI requires, in part, that " Measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality
. . are promptly identified and corrected." These measures are to preclude repetition of significant conditions that are adverse to quality.
The Marble Hill PSAR Chapter 17. Section 17.1.16 requires that PSI review and evaluate the reply to identified nocconformances in accordance with written quality assurance procedures to assure that the causes of the condition have been determined.
Contrary to the above, established measures did not assure that conditions adverse to quality were promptly identified and corrected.
For example
- a. PSI Construction Mansgement Procedures numbers CMP 3.1 and CMP 1.4 are insufficient in both text and beplementation La that in many instances sufficient corrective action to prevent repetition of significant conditions adverse to quality has not occured.
For examples over a twelve month period Newburg-Marble Hill issued ninety-one (91) field nonconformance reports identifying areas of defective concrete (i.e. honeycomb). However, this condition was not viewed by PSI as a serious trend requiring additional corrective action until April 1979.
- b. PSI was made aware of serious issues involving noncompliance and potential nonconpliance with ASME Code requirements regarding owners responsibilities and saterial certification documents in July 1977, June 1978, July 13, 1978, May 14, 1979 March 9, 1979, June 6, 1979, and July 27, 1979, by virtue of letters on these dates from site contractors identifying these issues.
However, no comprehensive and conforming corrective actions were initated until July 1979 af ter a National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors inspection report regarding these matters was issued.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CotetISSION 1 OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENTORCIMENT REGION III l :
Report No. 50-546/79-11; 50-547/79-11 Docket No. 50-546; 50-547 License No. CPPR-170; CPPR-171 Licensee: Public Service of Indiana L 1000 East Main Street Plainfield, IN 46168 Tacility Name: Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Marble Hill Site, Jefferson County, Indiana i
Inspection Conducted: July 26, 27, 31 and August 1-3, 1979 Inspectors: C. C. Williame, Chief /# ~8 ~ 7I Projects Section 2 D. W. Ea[, lef En i ering Su o t Section 1
/d A 77 G. 1 > 11 l0"I~l
- 1. R. hu
\
/ mad M '3
- 7f
~
ATPhillip /# [
nef
! Approved By: iTChief ~
j Reactor Construction and /
Engineering Support Branch i
Inspection Summary i
Massection on July 26, 27, 31 and Auaust 1-3. 1979 (Report No. 50-546/79-11 00-547/79-11)
Areas Inspected:
Special, usannounced inspection involving determination of l adequacy of site management, QA/QC and engineering organizations. The t
investigation involved 240 inspector hours easite by four NRC inspectors. '
! Results: la the areas inspected it was determined that the subject organizations were saadequate in staffing, technical qualification and esperience to an estent that precludes continued construction of safety-related items. Tour items of aoacompliance were identified and are outlined in Paragrapha 4, 5 and 6 of this l report, i
l lh b N
i Introduction The Marble Hill Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, licensed to Public '
Service of Indiana, is under construction at a site approximately 10 miles south of Madison, Indiana. Sargent & I. undy is the architect engineering agent for the plant. The facility will utilize two 1150 megawatt pressurized water reactors supplied by Westinghouse. Unit 1 is approximately 20% .
complete and Unit 2 is approximately 6% complete. I i Reason for Special Inspection i
i As is detailed in Region III Marble Hill Report Numbers 50-546/79-07; '
50-546/79-08 and 50-546/79-09 and the July 10, 1979, report from "The
! National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors," serious and extensive noncompliance to construction and fabrication requirements have i occurred at the Marble Hill plant site. As a result of these findings, j civil construction activities were stopped several times. The objective 4
of this inspection was to identify the % ing cauass_st the nonconforming conditions outlined in the reports referenced'above.
During the conduct of the above referenced inspections, symptomat_ic de fi r 4 --d - - -- -- -* ia e h- -he r , analificat 4 a-- -' - - - --
-"c-l Suasary of Findings i
l NRC has concluded that effective implementation of the documented Marble Hill Quality Assurance program for all safety-related construction has 1
not occurred. PSI has not sufficiently complied with its fundamental commitment to conduct all of these construction activities in accordance ,
with the requirements of 10 CTR 50, Appendix B, and other required codes and standards.
i 4 4 e:
1
! a e ent su or )6 num o ame-^---1, (3) asu < < -
ification of personnel,
.uu t) insuffict'ently .y. nenced personnel.
The ry bu i ficant contributing causes o l E 1 !
t stve s i i
stsons s,(4) txe ;
C vert 1 Cat 10n o CODS tug quaCy,
. 2-
MJou (5) t authority to QC inspecters and their sa ut wo ment e res site OA manning rega ,
l of ze ment unavailable cra seen re tres more c te.
l The above findings by their nature involve all safety-related construction activity at the site. Without extensive corrective actions, there is little likelyhood that continued construction can be accomplished with '
1 adequate assurance that quality requirements will be set.
l Based on t sted in tiu licensee's decision to sten i i STP coenrenan=:.ve corrective actions !
! uw errective. onts concluston was
, er 'na conzirmatory order by the NRC on l August 15, 1979.
l I
l
(
4 I
I i
I j
I I
I i
l .
k i
l 3
O
DETAILS
- 1. Principal Persons Contacted Public Service of Indiana
- S. W. Shields, V. P. Electric Systems
- L. A. Crews, V. P. Construction i
- T. R. Burns, Supervising Engineer Nuclear
- G. Kofmockel, V.P. Engineering
- F. R. Hodges, QA Manager
- M. L. Norris, Assistant Project Manager R. M. Brown, Construction Project Superintendent
- T. L. McLarty, QA Construction Supervisor
- W. T. Smith, Construction Field Supervisor i
- S. E. Farlow, Site Design Control Supervisor D. L. Shuter, Lead QC Engineer J. Roberts, Supervisor QA Design and Procurement V. Berlin, QC Engineer T. L. Sheet, Supervisor QA Records Reviewer F. Wilkins, Records Reviewer W. Minic, QC !aspector J. Spaa, QC Inspector R. E. Wooley, Construction Supervising Engineer J. Bott, Eastaaer i R. E. Coughlin, V. P. Nuclear W. A. Nuenstermaa, Sr. Construction Project Engineer 4
R. A. Latronica, Sr. Construction Project Engineer 1
C. J. Korba, Personnel Maasser D. A. Dedrick, Senior QA Engineer G. Davis, QA Engineer D. Barker, QA Engineer .
N. Necodemus, QA Engineer J. Payton, QA Engineer R. A. Mustafa, Engineer i
Construction Code Representatives W. F. Johnson, Supervisor Quality Systems, National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors Robert F. Johnson, Chief Inspector Indiana Boiler and Pressure
- Vessel Board C. W. Allison, Field Representative National Rosed of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors.
Charles Merkel, Nuclear Inspection Specialist. Indiana Boiler and Pressure Vessel Board W. Braden, Authorized Nuclear Inspector (Site Contractor),
H. Moran, Authorised Nuclear Inspector (Site Contractor)
I .
l /
j =4=
l 1
Nutech Corporation
'aadv. Consultant (ASME Code)
J. Crowe, consultant (aans coce) 1 Newburg-Marble Hill \
N. P. Cooper, General Superintendect J. Ball, Lead QC Engineer E. P. Guy, Quality Assurance Supervisor Chicago Bridge and Iron Company L. Bauer, Project Foreman Cherne Contractina Corporation C. Jergens, QC Hanager Stewart Mechanical Incorporated D. A. Hignite, QC Supervisor B. Cash, QC Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
- 2. Scope of Inspection This inspection included review and examination of the PSI organizations for corporate management, site construction sanagement, site QC, Corporate QA, site engineering, and corporate engineering.
It also included evaluation of PSI's resolution of nonconformances to the ASME Boiler and Pressure vessel Code Section III, Division 1, as documented by " National Board" letter dated July 10, 1979, and the construction performance of site civil, mechanical and piping contractors to the extent that PSI's capability to control the quality of the plant construction activity was demonstrated.
- 3. Corporate and Site Management
- a. Interviews were held with supervisors and managers of Public Service of Indiana QA/QC, Construction Project and Personnel (1) Graanization and staffing.
[ Knowledge and experience of project management personnel in nuclear power and major construction projects.
I jM Understanding and commitments to quality assurance.
l
@ Establishment of goals and objectives. I t
/ Responsibilities and delegation of authority.
p Action on field identified problems and the timeliness and adequacy of this action.
[ Interface provisions and communications between organizations. ;
- b. Based on these discussions with both site and corporate management personnel and review of records and internal reports, the or cont the Marble Hill problems are
[ Lack of full understanding and appreciation of the complexity or =ma=nnu a projeu vi w= neenituur vi u.aute n2AA.
Ine Tenamnew === w uw.s mana-nt of the narDie Hill pro 1ect =neh th- =- as naat =====-- nt ox iv att power tant construction, a reco ition o el having nuc l rsonnel (2) The o d e A Co ev e ine an t is o apparent aisunder-v -neing and lacs ox zu11 acce ptance or we ynfyC organization.,
p (3) r_ity had not baan dal---* A *- -4*-
===== - at
- c. Other contributing factors include:
(1) Over reliance on contractors.
(2) Emphasis on costs.
(3) Pay policies.
- 4. Review of QA/QC Organization I
- a. Objective etion l . . 6-l .
I
l l
- b. Method of Accomplishment were accomplished by an examination of.
[ PSI QA/QC organization; staffing and qualifications.
[ Responsibilities and authorities of QA/QC personnel.
(f Interfaces between QA/QC - project management - engineering -
contractors and craftsmen.
f Determination of possible constraints relative to the effective implementation of these responsibilities.
[ Communications within the project management group both upward and downward.
[ Effectiveness of dealing with unsatisfactory conditions' which have been identified.
[ Attitudes toward quality.
The methods used in accomplishing the objectives required interviewing PSI QA/QC and project management personnel, reviewing PSI QA/QC management and technical records includin- dam =ented ional ins , Field 'Nonconfor sance or s, c ton equests, and correspondence involving ASME Section III materials. Interviews were also conducted with representatives of the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors, and the Authorized Inspectors representing site contractors.
- c. Findinas (1) Liberal interpretation by PSI, for PSI QA/QC personnel, of the ANSI N45.2.6-1973 standard (concerning qualification of inspection examination and testing personnel) has resulted in the following:
(a) I procedure QAP 6.8 nor CMP 3.10 res
'4 rior ,0 og Ors ,
or ,
r--4-- -- or Supervisor.
j (b) who overview of site activities, aatu ra"- (O have had
~
i
prior to being assigned by PSI to the QA/QC organization.
There is less than 15 man years of experience distributed betweeu wa .. , ymoy...
i This condition is contrary to 10 CTR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II; the Marble Hill PSAR Chapter 17.1.2 and therefore ANSI N45.2.6 (1973). This item is an infraction.
(546/79-11-01; 547/79-11-01) l (2) PSI has failed to orov44- comprehensive documented instructions l om u i vs . w.. , 60 assure that :c u- -_-- ---
- Aug cunattions are laentizzea t acKe and -a---- - '
. prevent
. , ,y , e following adverse Conaltions -was ov.ed.
(a) Over a twelve sonth period Newberg-M3rble Hill issued ninety-one (91) Field Nonconformance Reports identifying areas of defective concrete (i.e. honeycomb). I was not unti: April.1979 after NRC interventian th l va.- - tais conoition as an unsatisfactory trend.
(b) Over a fifteen south period Newberg-Marble Hill issued twenty-five (25) Field Nonconformance Reports identifying "out of slump" concrete as being placed.
es cification (Y-2850, paragraph 4 . .e a lacement l
o minimize ss aar n=ril Ta l = 1079 that PSI seriously viewe is d--
, ca -- --
"a = =
- 4 a fm ete ry cs=no, requirlag a ~
specification change. -
l l
(c) A total of two hundred and thirty-five (235) Field Corrective Action Requests, identifying unsatisfactory l documentation or noaca '^- '-- a4nine snool nieces, j
were issued by PSI to/aga' _ (an off site vendor supplying piping spool pieces). One l hundred and ninety-six (196) of these being documenta-tion defficiencies, the remaining thirty-nine being i
related to improper fabrication.
- a atisfactory con i tons at etPto reven recu i This condition is contrary to 10 CTR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI and the Marble Hill PSAR Chapter 17, Section 17.1.16. This is an infraction. (546/79-11-02; 547/79-11-02) ,
i 8-
(d) As a result of interviews with QC inspectors and review of nonconformance documentation, it was deter-mined that there have been numerous unsatisfactory ca-A4*4^-- wh4ch n=va a-<-"---
--: --- --------as i inst =11 mtion of cane * . However, immediate stopping of the nonconforming activity apparently did nat occur. These e e been prevented or mum- t te ho peo. - r --== A systes employed by or issuing a stop-work order ,
requires inordinate processing through the QA/QC l organization, and project and engineering organizations.
Consequently, th- =##--*4===== af oc inspection is That is, the inspeLwr nas no rac ica an or o stop in process nonconforming activities. g at there has bee re SI
. con ton is contrary B, Criterion II and the Marble Hill PSAR Chapter 17, Section 17.1.1.1. This is an infraction and is cited as an element of Appendix A, i
Ites 1. (546/79-11-01; 547/79-11-01) I i
I (e) It was determined through indepth discussion that lances of construction activities. Rounver. these l
-, reil'.ances have been mostly topical s tnout enough
! g u.us w ... .... m.. we l 6 orga re performing as req o ance hd si e seen in the sites noncon-ormance history, and the multitude of adverse issues identified by NRC and others, i in Pa"^**
and hm= led to con i ions as i entified in Ph*P S
ConsLALuces nonConIQrmance to tu un so, Appendix'B, Criterion II. (546/79-11-01; 547/79-11-01) i
! (f) As is indicated by attachments A and B (PSI QC Group Manpower Summary) ite Q h a ser site managements e currently a need for additional members of the QC organization. Te 4= "aM c2ted that c
l l
.g.
f otal site manning), ed i
! e*
_ -aa= truce 4an fare n as remained virtually the Fea= December 1978 r.o suiy 41,1, m atte conatenetion activity curing we spring and summer addedt7theworkkohee.
(Note: only eight of the 29 members of the site QC l
organization are QC inspectors.) NRC inspectors
' detemined that in November 1977. PSI N' forces renresented A1'r ^' ^"------***='4*= In uecemoer ala, PSI QC represented 36% of total QC ~
staffing at the site. At the time of this inspection PSI QC represented 31% of the total QC forces at the site. n that wh le
- t. decreasing.
i t the time of this inapec ton the extent that PSI's quality assurance commitments i
I were not being effectively implemented. Moreover, this finding confirmed in part, that all safety-related work was involved.
NOTE: Stating that PSI's QC forces represented 41, 36, and 31 percent of total site QC staffine da== nae l indi
' . Its .
re in scates on y re lance on contractors QC forces was increasing, and PSI's QC staff's surveil-lance capability was decreasing as the construction activities increased.
(h) In regard to the Newburg-Marble Hill organization NRC ;
inspectors have determined that their performance was '
less than satisfactory (reference NRC Reports 546/79-07, 08, and 09). I_t is noemd here ehme th= can=== fa-these na = = tis f acro rv n=-<------- = - - in nn-e-inadenu=e= -----4---- a'-h-en of norsonn=1 mad annarentiv in-d-~ -*- 4a< -a-ad-ar- " - - - - - - "
I ion. See NRC inspectors concluded from observation and discussion i that Newburg nroduction mananers have annarently an es l
led them to the conclusion that t contractura relation (fixed- rice and 1
ias had an adverse effe n s and their accep ance by Newburg production and QC contributed to perceived " undue influence" that Newburg production has on Newburg QC. This conclum4aa in mare iudaemental le. It is not believed that tze price contrac s inherently compromise quality, but rather, in circumstances where a contractor is ied vers g o s r- ra ha -t . La o this extent inspectors believe the num14tvthIt the nature af can truction of the contract has affected f at this u-.. -1..
(i) As is indicated above, NRC independently determined and site records confirmed that the ESI OC organization is seriously understaffed. (See Attachmenta A anG B). It is apparent tnat s_ite managment of the QC orenn< rmtnon although not adequateAy ... m . . ' '
need "ar "u i i v aus u u- _ ___
' ^ ' '
__ a el, amed To M ditional per'onnel at
- v. -- - - -- a f ea- s the time of this inspection.
' (j) As stated above in subparagraph (f) the PSI site QC organization sanagement, recognized that it was seriously understaffed and in part under qualified.
NRC inspectors questionei the apparent delay in hiring the necessary personnel for these positions.
NRC inspectors reviewed and examined the PSI management records associated with request for additional personnel i for the QA/QC department and the PSI administrative procedures for processing personnel or " manning
- request."
NI f
one s a to graphically represented by Attachment D.
Th4- - - * = 4-osed an 4ae--A4h1= - " - * ^' + J4ous just diention on cae taitiator of th* increased t invo ved the as process a red I
stifm.ng request m nanager). 3e == = r - Fantin*1v tan k =a
- k"
" --- 9 te, and f.recuentiv annra- i only a_ fraction of the renummt d at2ffing. Ms rs.
1 i -
11 -
i
___m _ _ _ _ _.-- , . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . .,.-, .. . . - . - - _ - - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I Review of PSI " Manning - General Headquarters -
l Nuclear Services Department Quality Assurance Section" l
documents dated from 1976 to present, sb - -^- 4= tant failure of corporate ==n= =a--* rn be .m__-
.__.,,.,m .no m_,- 4- --*d-- -- *h-
= tit una i requir== ants or eh- mite OC or :anizations, resurus Goc"=-ne 2 liemnv or L ca v6 mAowleoge<E g .e reviewed included meeting minutes and notes of the i
various participants as outlined on Attachment D of this report. Examples are QC staffing manning records dated, April 18, 1978, July 26, 1977, June 1, 1979, February 17, 1978, July 12, 1978, June 24, 1975, November 12, 1976, March 30, 1978, June 29, 1976, and June 22, 1976.
4 It is apparent that ch4. extemordin=r41v rimorous a ractice a lied b corporate management in ace <
o o a to sin e te.
is const ere lated s indicate
! ified j
ove, su paragraphs (e)-(i) it is
! concluded that PSI has not sufficiently established
' and implimented its quality assurance program. This is contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II.
l This ites is an infraction. (546/79-11-01; 547/79-11-01)
- 5. Examination of Site Engineering Organization As a result of record review and indepth discussions with site construction engineering personnel of various disciplines, the RIII inspector has established the following conclusions.
l a.
Relative to sit % '
- """' ^
concluded that 12 - '
i I
Review of personnel files of the construction engineers indicates basically, that they are to review and evaluate construction procedures and supervise construction. Though :he concept appears to be adequate, discussions with nerunnn=1 indicate that thav vere ant acercountalv rasti l t m e with thm unck in proarman to an=ble ches to adequately evaluate th= unck erfo d. In.o n-1 -vau., r. raining and iudoctrination of the s apparently in.ucyu.we. -
l Moreover, the overall job related experience of the construction engineering staff appears inadequate to successfully accomplish their mission, al -
ruction e
vious ruc ton experience.
I curren ides the as t ruc-ese circ'==tance of noncompliance as identified in ites 1 of Appendix A of this report. (546/79-11-01; 547/79-1101)
(1) Training Program Inadequate A documented program outlining the various subjects in 1
which indoctrination and training should be imparted, was I
not established.
3 j F.zamples of this finding are as follows:
(a) It was detsmined that mechanical construct".on en=4-- rs l
on of the National Board of Pressure Vessel Inspector's i
findings but also resulted in the inability of the engineers to assest the significance of the findings for the work in progress. (See noncompliance item No. 546/79-11-04.)
(b) "'4'
'"^" '' i ^" ^"' 4 ""* *in e a roup ha s no t M s
- b. It was deterisined that o l
Examples of this finding are as follows: ,
(1) U 13 -
_ - - - . . - _ - . . . _ _ - _ _ _ ~ _ _ - - ._-
i l
nonconforming welding of Nelson studs in the turbine I building deck (Category II) unchallenged by PSI constructing engineering staff or others.
i (2) Tuk nr 1rnaul.A. of the construction sequence for in- I sta., ling safety relacea structural ow--. ..--.... au I torauinn the bolts of structural beas connections prior to acceptance or weldina acc. m ... __ . . - - .
(3) b 4 6-- *a --aa nhe the significance of an ann = rant l
further investigation. They were tagged at the NRC inspector's request on July 31, 1979.
(4) Being appare liar with the requirements of_the ASME cod , nicaA con =6 uw vu --a...... . icu to that a mar.inna sn.-nzs ve to m 1 Lam =.maman . a r c , a s o een esart g al which result M u.erous
- nonconformance reports. '
(5) Failare to nrocerly assess the significance of fabrication a rem.=<-- .... _
ponen as .
nce identified multiple linear indications which were discovered after Cherne welded a pipe to an embedded Category 1 pipe penetration identified as 2AB-3, (located in the auxiliary building). No action was taken to verify the adequacy of other piping common to this i material heat and manufacturer. The NRC inspector identified this concern and action was initiated on August 2, 1979, ;
to perform NDE tests on penetrations of the same heat (No. '
l 73457) such as IAB-3, 1AB-50, 1AB-140,'1AB-141, 2AB-113, J
2AB-114 and/or review the CN1'Rs to determine whether they met the prescribed tests prior to installation.
(6) e work An progress, contributed to their failure to recogize that the CBI welding procedure E7018/7303 Revision 1 dated June 20, 1977, did not specify weld technique for some positions. -
- c. The inspector reviewed CBI u.o a- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , , mn E7018/7303 Revision 1 dated June 30, 1977. This WPS was being -
used by CBI to field fabricate Diesel Fuel 011 Storage Tanks on site. In Revision 0 of the VPS the weld technique was initially specified as " Stringer Bead" with an asterisk and later
)
- 14 -
l l
_ - - -- -- , _ , , , - . . . . - , . . , . , ~ , - . , , . - . . . _ - - - - . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . . . . , , , , . . , _ . , , , _ . - - - - - - . . - , , . . - , - - . ,
l ..
obliterated with 'x's; the asterisk indicated at the bettom of j the page " Weave bead technique for vertical up and overhead j passes"; this obliteration 1=Fe the VPS withnut any technioue i
for all nammars oLaer Laan vertic21 'm 2 n ri overhead. With this
' error, the WP5 went through the review cycle which included l
Sargent & Lundy, the Architett Engineer, and was approved without detection and correction. The WPS was later revised and Revision 1 dated June 30, 1977. was issued with the error
- undetected and corrected during the subsequent review cycle.
The inspector informed the licensee that reviews performed to evaluate and approve the WPS was insufficient and that this was an item of noncompliance (infraction) contrary to 10 CFR 50, l
Appendix B, Criterion IX. (546/79-11-03; 547/79-11-03) t
- d. Motivation / Initiative / Leadership Appears Inadequate (1) It was determined that Co -
es s 1
saure sse a steport < ate 0, esselves and/or respond to i correct the findings and issues. (See noncompliance item No. (546/79-11-02, Paragraph 6.e of this report.)
i' l
(2) ruction en ineer e succ asent l
p ches
' an gae . RIII Reports 546/79-07, 08 and 09.)
(3) It was a re es nor j '
e/
y -
. nr'=a ata e mes were prov to the cument reviewerf on site. Ine checklist orginators (engineers) should ha nrovided additicnal traininn; efficient c t~o snouu uw maousnea with nta o ly verify the adequacy of documenta-tion packages and associated instructions.
! b e me i V . -
t (4) It === datar=4- A "-- "-
--'^-4e narticipation, ete 0
I
- - - _ _ ___ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ . - _- . - . - _ - - ~ _ . - . - - _
- e. Inadequate decimination of information that is, nea of NRC j
Bu11 tinn/ Circulars to make personnel aware of potenttal problem areas-
~
- (1) It was established that re -4ne 4nenaction eersonnel were (2) It was determined that there - no formal or routine l 6. The National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors Report /ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Issues 1
- a. On July 10, 1979 the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors issued a report (provided here as attachment !
E) which documented extensive items of apparent noaconformance !
to ASME Code requirements. Tle l inspection on which this renort was based was I .
came as a result of on term l on ermine ,
a to e as y an ues.
I b. Fundamentally, P r ASME lifications a nted au ority, ,
l an i '
er, zed od r i t ir Y
t ter su , (2) er sa te qua it7 c or the site contractor's c
acL: .2vtrrrrrpecumrrrrzwir. -
l
- c. Discussion with PSI's site and corporate management regarding i these issues after the issuance of the " National Boards . . . " '
report, demonstra -
c ts in ur er -- n = act that no no fy anc of the board's findings. -
- d. During this inspection, NRC inspectors conducted interviews i' with piping contractors (" Stewart Mechanical" and "Cherne L,
16 -
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . . . , - - - - - - _ - = , , , - + - , - - - _ - . - . , , - - . ------------.--m._..,,.._--.---w.- ~ ~.--
Contracting Corporation") authorized nuclear inspectors. Based on these discussions and review of r.onconforming material records identified by the Cherne ANI, W " - ~ 4"d-A
- M*
the problems L.n material records ide_ntified by the " National Board .
." Maspection prevails. , Among ocner identified noncontornances taere is current iv_ no documented applicant for N-stamp certification _for the'conhcru m vu or cae narote n111 J-.. .ou. mvanized N' oaro's" s 11ncings were cased onconditionswhichprevailedat/thetimeoftheirinspection and that some of these findings jaay be immediately resolvable by records currently available at the site.
- e. /
During examination of site recc7rda NRC inspectors identified a s (nonconformance repu m , _ ____ ther documents ,g ~ ensee was full aware of g vu e<
d ve 2reson- iron is ase on owing letters from site contractors regarding these issues provided as attachments to this report:
(1) Attachment "T", Stewart Mechanical letter dated July 14, 1977, QA Manager to Frank Hodges, PSI.
w (2) Attarh=ent "G", Stewart Mechanical letter dated June 2, 1978, J. L. Butt, QA Manager to Frank Hodges, PSI.
(3) Attachment "H", Stewart Mechanical letter dated July 13, '
1978, J. L. Butts, QA Manager to J. Roberts, PSI.
(4) Attachment "I", Cherne Contracting Corporation letter dated May 14, 1979, C. Jergens, QC Manager to T. McLarty, PSI. -
(5) Attachsen- "J", Cherne Contracting Corporation letter dated March 7, 1979 M. Anderson to Frank Hodges, PSI.
(6) Attachment "K" Cherne Contracting Corporation letter dated June 6, 1979, C. Jergens to T. McLarty, PSI. l j
(7) Attachment "L", Cherne Contracting Corporation letter i
dated June 6, 1979, C. Jergens to T. McLarty. (Second letter to this date.) !
(8) Attachment "M", Cherne Contracting Corporation letter dated July 27, 1979, C. Jergens to T. McLarty, PSI.
The above is contrary to PSI commitment to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI in that these nonconformances and other discrepant issues were not promptly corrected and the measures 17 -
taken did not assure that the cause of the condition was corrected to an extent to preclude repetition. This item is an element of Appendix "A" item number 4. (546/79-11-02; 547/79-11-02)
- f. During examination of the PSI documents (nonconformance reports associated with the PSI /Cherne quality records issues) the inspector questioned Cherne NCR No. 6.94. Nonconformance report No. 6.94 dated June 11, 1979, 4daat4'4-A == m nrnbles that PSI was not an N-stamp holder. However- 4t u== ="h==a"-ntly voided. The conerni,a* orocecures do not describe the " voided"
<rm - or a nonconformance reporr.. Ine "voiceo' a u so. 6.94 reference Laerne aux ao. u.4*4r,- however, the PSI records system does not account for NCRS by the given designation (0.1427). It was unhmeonant1v r==-- ' -'-* eh- r=#---a--A wrR 0.1427 was never written. Therefore, it appears that there was no casts to vota or close NCR 6.94. Subsequently, it was reported that a Cherne letter was the basis for the voiding of this NCR, but it did not relate to'NCR 6.94.
The unresolved status of this documentation, and the defective records system, does not constitute an adequate basis for closing or voiding NCR No. 6.94.
This matter is considered to be in noncompliance to PSI commit-ments 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XV, in that control measures did not provide appropriate procedures for identifica-tion, documentation, disposition and notification to affected organizations. (546/79-11-04; 547/79-11-04)
- g. PSI has subsequently applied to ASME for an N-stamp for Class 1, 2 and 3 piping system 4; requested " Hartford Steam Boiler" to furnish full time inspection of the project and initiated other corrective actions as outlined in PSI letter dated July 28, 1979, attached here as ites "N". This matter is considered unresolved. (546/79-11-05; 547/79-11-05)
Attachments: Attachments A - N
(
. , . . . . . ~ . . - - - - - . . .- - - - . - . . - - . . .- . . - - . - - ---.--- ---- --
/
. . . . . . .,w 4
4
.e
. . -e .
e
. 4 t4
. . e 94 . . .
e .. .
.a..
1.- . . .,
.... .6 t .
.6 .. .
, ..,. j 9. g -. .... .. . .. . . . - 4....
, . .3 7..
....g... . n <. .. ..... .t.. . . .... .< . . . . < . ... . . . . . . . . . .
)g .....
4 4~ .. . .
.+..
.... f }.
i . ; .
. e .
g,.
g . . . . ._
. . ..A.,,< . ...
.4 .
<-.g ..
. . g . . .
. . .. . j.3..
..q
- y. y.
. . . . j . . .. . . .
.y
- ' " l I *'
. .. .... . . . . . . . . a h ._.. ..
. J .. ... . .4.. .4.. 9_..
_A
,m e .. _- .g... g . . . J ._. . .
i n .
.w. .
.s.3 w'N i t J_. // 2 T T. I i
. . . .. . 4... . -
- -n[ .T
.g..
' ; - .. a. 9 q .- . . < ...
1 3
g .g , , , <.
{.... . . j a.g. --... .
-4;q . . . s . . ._ .
't - -- ,
A. g . Ay m l
t i- i -
i e // w 3 m a nn &' // 3 i
i l
6 . .-w ==_ '//
. y rfj
- "" l t
- N pupsf/>
- e ****
- i /f r/) 6 j
i g enm I // r/ ; e .
- dar-w g e 1 / /.'/s
~~ .
j 9 i /r r/,
a .
// rf. 6 i f% a // f/ ,
. ennn //. //f/
- i em
\
q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
spu /L* //f/ t J7 // ))//
, Q ._,. ,_, 6ff / //// s
// }}f)
% *""Te nn ' ' ' ~ ~ ** '
~ ~ ~~~'
(ff // // // n i
% =_-_ ff f/ 11 2 //
//}
/
/
_ ff // >J/)
// // >> f) e Ann f)/
/
//
~ ~
/])_~
// *
/J f/
//
//
f:1)
'i's /) i i
' A w'v //
/} ~'~ff/)
// // Ji/) t
& // // '>') />
t L r Q e
// 1) // // J > /> \ } // f) // +r // J'314 n 4 q Ann // /) f) // >~) /> ,
k *** // fj f) // 1jfa
+
>. 4 // /) 1) /) A) /.
E *'* q // /) /) f) fa ' /, a q // /> // /) s','/ , f ea Ann
//
//
/>
/>
/)
f) f)
//
! s's'/
J' F /.
- et *
// /> f) /) s
'/. *
\ >* w T s
- s // // /) /) ~2'2'/
0 W M i.% e
// /> // i L .
W Y Man i v' s
//
/) jb' f. r 4 5 e
/> 6 f) *
- 1) abr/ ,
A* { e '
- Me
//
//
/>
/>
t /)
/> f
//
/)
J'.r f. s',Vla l W // /> s
.- * /) f) a'a'f2 e i Yl // /) /) /) * 's's'/>
n uman CI1i //, // /j f) /)
=-w
*
- J's]> >
4 .- // // /> f) // r
- j'als i * - // // /> f) //
- J'>J> l l /) /) // e a
// * // j's /> !
' 'Y }/ // f) // // j's]) e !
.-- K * // // // // // s'31) ' 6
=~
1s e J/ // /) // *
// 2'iff f
' // fj ____,() // // ,
J')/)
- e rt ,
// /) /> // // e J')// \
/> f) // // j'j//
Y}(}f m.- // />
/> ff // J')ff O
- 1 'ivw /A _ // /> /> u /) >>u a j ,f) // fi %*
/) // // s 2/// 2 1
- /) // />
^
/> // ;' /) J/ff h * !
/J M // /> f) // 4- // 2)f/ ".
) Aan ./) M // /, /> // Q- // J/// w h -
GF* dJF _% // Ja /> e ff h // //// *t o x n f, /, , n ..- n i nu m. . s ,'f/ 1'" t // /, /> , // 't // ! JJ/) Mi e s
- r ..// a5 // /, e /> t /J Ln . // /J /1 % ! < s e Ama s
. H . han // * * /> f) // L* /) > jff i * '
s& M < ff 's // r la e /j e
// . /> >Jf/ LA e !
, * . u u *, , a u-
+ //
g/ r '* a J/ 1
/>
/>
/>
/2 e // .
1)
/)
s
, }}n dj /)
U i e * // ! // mL - J/ 4
/> /) , ! // '" : /> ' * ) > J'1
- 6 *
//
I - ^~ aff ' i J/ l
*
- 12 /> < i f/ en s /> > >fi EF,1
- r F H 'F //
_ /> f) // tu /) t JJ// h . I *
/ s // Me /J * * /> 6
/> . l f/ 'anana n * /> a ! )jff W=
- l *
- FeenF/ // 'F ' // '
I fj /> 6 i H l s /s i 21ff> ; (l *
// ff s t ff Ji
- Af *
- JJ
- 1 />~ * // / /) kt am // >" r ' ' ' ="
fi // *
- J/ '
/> ~
fj di W m ' J# v'M %d' ^%'W 'pd v -- Nu er y *gs' 'T* v v v v v 'gu' V. F 4NME EM E II lh l I *' *
- ier a ,a m.,.m, er er.:n , -s v, m-m ,. . N x m..m x
]3-b-S -
* ,, m i I ? I *
. g I ! ' 't i e i { i' (Iwfs *w aesstus)
* ** .F** .he*. m . . e .m eye .m _---_.a....
_ _ - , - . . , , ,. .._---.--,.~--m-- ,c , . < - - - , - - - - - . . . - - - - - - -
-- --- _ -6 we
~E,,
' ' n' .. v4 4 4 0 & 4 ' 4! 4' !all 'A
- = '
, j < 't I ) i I l l l = , i i < l l l l i t i a < l l < l l l l 1 l l l m < ;
1 I < l l I ! I l l 1 Ju l l < l l < l i i i i i i
!" i I < l l
' < l i l I I I 1 1 l l
- i < l ' ;
I < I l I t 1 1 i m <. I I I i < l ! l I I I I t
= 1 < ,
i l I < } l 1 ! 1- . ma l < l I i < l l 'l 1 1 1 I 11' ser . <
< .< . . < < : :q < a . < <
1 t h a $6 4 . 4W 4 <4 6 h & 4 4 1 1 A' I em j j I} < , l .l l lq ! ll ms i < l . Il < l i I i I .! t. li
* <l '
Il <l i i . l I I I i I .il m , . < l o * ' y , i., '
., <. J l
- iur < ; .' t , a t i i i-I m < l .- L; < -
l ; I l T j ua i < ; . I l < l I ( l ' I
== al -
1 i < l i i I I i i ma l < l . i l < i i i i l l l l 1 er . . . . < . < . < << .. . . << s g . . . me n A .< n a A o < & n 4 n si a 4 4 AA a I e < a < s l l l I T me i - s i I I
< =
. l l a l s : I e i T gs < l e <l i l 3 I i l I g, ne, a l a <
l l i s l l I ; ' I k m., < a < ! f
, I s ' I i I
!ll-m a '
=
I < i i s I ! ! l 1 S = < l a l I a l s ! I I I ! - E a= a l a i l < l s I i I ! ! ! 3 g na a l I a l l l < l i . s . I l l ! l .
]
me t h
& ha n *
& A sa 4 4 4 L4. 1-4 I s _ . , . , a l - , ,
l i i E I m ' a l I , a l s i - 1 I I i } j i e ' < l a l I l s i - i i I i sur I a a l I l a t- - I . 1 I g er
- a l t a i a luer -
i i a l l l I i l a ' - l . I ; 2 I
- asu l l
- I a -
I . i i l esy cu ; l I '
- a
! I s l -
l
! I i j t ma I < l I l 11 <
i l a a 1 I l I i I J-I I i l 88 g
., . .. y s. .
; - . . . , , - . . . .. . ; y p '
[ i ! = i : : i -
- 1 i : i:
o i l i l i l i II Ei l I ; I; E
< l I
C
<c u
- - -1 '
.' J a ,
j d
* . 8 1 . u j1 a 1 l vs . ] I ' al -
e i!<-! i n. E m i i. m 4 u w> u 4 i
' t i i .
. . i 1 , ,
' ! I . . . E g g
' i ii . ,
i i . . . l . ! ! , , . 6 i . 6 A 9 war ka me r r'* ! ' *
. t hf a * . t i e ! t i i t * , i
! I i e . . i . i , I i 4 , t i . e a i .
66 i i i i i ! . e i i a , i i i
,w n A :: r--H4e eed-port-4enH4-4 eta t-Newburg-unstration-staf ma -
I f Lil) ' El safJp,gJ t it T o ta l . idgkCMCJ4,hDC Qfi fj g]Q F SIETTlnQ. ! ee 5hadett 17q a ia ivis t.-*tinburd-4C~m II L ey.
. . l ,
i ! t i e i t e i , , . . frMM ' ' i ' ' I
! t
- i ' I i IV4/ V i ! e i h _' Ta ha n I at 4 arte i nf= I: r u'a helPM mantla L APM M 6fM Af'lLI A L IIATT.
. i i . - , ,
t i i i t
- i I i i a t 1 8 e i . 6 . . . i i i . . . i i i .
i or A P * ' I er V V i t ! e i
. t . i e
'OE ,
i 4 .i ! , ;ci . i
. . i. . . . .
.L i e e i
. . e i .
6 i i ii i . i 3_. 6 6 . i
,;nA . i , i a i . .i a e , i t e _% i . . . . . 4 i , i
# NV V e A' S bL.
. , ._- . L,j i i . . . . i 6 i 1 g ,
Wi . .
. . , i % i -
t ,e i e .m. . i i . , r9 P P hm= W ' 'M d w t./ lie / r ! i .T [ *** i i t, f i 2" i ii , * ' a + % *
- f . I e i e i. 1 t i, im i e i j .y - . 6 6
* ! , i J
=
! i ll i e i . . . l 6 . e e i e , . . i
_g y n i . . 6 6 6 . %) ._ i 6 i i i I e s
.O i i
. 4. %/ b/ e
- i "'N .m + i ii M 9 t i ! l u+. . , , , , , , , , . 6 6 4 em , ,
iec
. s. ! !
si
. . i ,
i ! 4 4 ,
. r i ,
i , 4; I i . v iw. : h-4 Y i y, a n n 9 i- ..w . D= i o i g p f F b/ V ! . i .L* . Lt , , eg . + t i r w . i e i
. 6 i i e li ! .J. . s 'n . . i . i . !D # , i . . .
. i 4 . .6 J: . . .. . i . !m i i + . i e i i y e ! i i , y t ig5 , ,
. . I i e ' . t . . ,
, n f== n . . . - ia ye # . 6 i w= . . , e i ,
i b/ b,st) i f.J i ! : , C s
% i <
6 c . * ! , i i 4
, .=66 m , i we. . . i
+ . t i iA7 e i Om n.. . 'J j i i I; e i 6 1 i . .
6 i t . , I i ,c'ie 6%t ! in i i t It i i i e i t 6 i e RAA s . 6 . __w ip t w-
'" %s i ,
=r V V i i e i * . . " . . . ,,a e ti t , , t . W e . .
. < t i e i .
(w' 4 i i . . i 3 . . i t y . .go i j i i , , i . 3 .
. 6 ' *
+ t t i , 15. I i
- ud i b , 4 6 i e i , 6 , i t ! I i i e
! A n J g e i i i i e e i 4 , i . .
we et P r= ' + i e i r i o . wf /A 6 a f . i . . . . . e i f"1 E] VV i e i . w U_J j . . -y== . i i . . . . ej e e e! i 4 ea e t . w , == i
. ri/ e i i y 6 i * 'g=, a N W e /j ,
i
.. e e i i i .
. va
,~ ! e e i . i w*i ,
r w t i /; wf . , . . i i , , wA i e ti 6 . e , /, a tij . i 6 i a i
. I b/ V .U ,
- I // '/
=#
i t a , . . . 3 r Ci . e i t %. . i ! fr/ t / 3
- r/ i i s 6 i e i i e i i t , i j 9
43 ' 'Ci . i D // / ' e // . i Vd * . hf1 /* A 1"L . i 6 N! i i i 8** i w i ==p-- // 6 r/ . /j i i , 3 r i
. d
, // /2 i /2 /. . , . i . . ,
t_J VVV . T. . . /j r/ /, . ( t
* : (1= ' i *
~. *
. . t /s
/>
r/
/> ,
i t I
/,.
/,
f:)
/ .
/ . i 4 i i l .
* . t i
6
, i i e t e
. ! t .
i i .
. + + i e
- M1- ! e I /s / . i f., . / i i t i i t i , e i i ern . tw /, r / . '/ r.,' i mo %f W , LJ ; e / f j e ' / / . , / s ,
* * * i 5) i / / . /) /,
i / ! t
- i i a sened . e a . . . r a 'f , /j . i r,j . . i f i . , . ,
i iD- ! L7 f i / F/ t / 4 / e e 4 i / t t t t t ? e i e ene * . L> >
~/ ,r , " /
*VV .
/ s
/ * , .*
, f: , I * /, * .
r , , f , s .
- r i
. . i + , / ' f . / 6
/ r.j . i i
, === i r j r a . ,, / ni / M i e
. . . . fj j, . / p . or, n j i ==r i i s . s 9 A f"* J 91 // /> 2'm /
*' { .
f J J %d f> P' * ! ,
.J V V t i 1) am i // n i /2 -' 'f '/ tM i i / 9 /2
.'c- ar - -i
- 6 e '= 1 t '
- t ' '
- J . /) / F r/ F % F ) s ."= /
r . *
- c. < * * !
tn *E * /) C ~ / t" ,f >' i /, % / 1 / O n i i i ! *
*
- 2 // t i fj u /, t , f J / u F
/ .. i ! i f t M W'"' M //
8
! t "M // 'C /; E / i i ' ') J., ' '/ 'al C ,' ' 'i' * ' '
LVV // -s /) .w /. m '/ fa ? U s
. f2 / r it *
'st V
// A /> Me 4 / L4* rr , , i / L / * . / !st
- t i ! i e i ss // >= />
1
/ J, / i e / . -) V s '
s r z.: i . i i l t ' ' // at /) V * * '/ l / 6 i 2
* / ' st / !V' ' ! i + ' !
. n, i VV
// s , ,, f s , . m - / c ,! / 1 ~. .
i i
- i e // .
/> /, L fa t / Ls fa mCE ~/ iY '
t i I r '
- i e i '
. t i
i t t i
//
//
_'29
.n:
i j'; j s
.f""..
t e t
/
'/T A /,
/.
i
'/
f (f J ! 6 .1 i ' / I _
==e t C
/
s
- I i~' '
(M:
- i t I i t ii t 5 i i
- t
- i i t t /) J j[j #* i fj l f. t
2 iIl // I i / l: i , i 3 m i /- ar i s ,d c -m- er n-En s- - e-t
- i V
l
&'M "- '
. J& W-l '
- 6 i i i f" - " m.
c ( m c_~_ k ,-' V -.- P= M 9!WWimi
-- m =
%"i- w- a r ~
i T n _ 9'.'E .' W@=itr- r r qa rir r T y A w-% - me- % ,1 i
, i i MS T . c . :tawi-.=7 ':ga _ a s i w . : win t- =:;;, , =e mi r %..=n tw .a.i . ,, , , , , I i i i !'"** 1 1 i . . I e i i i_ i e ie i i e t i i 1 i i i i e i i i ! 6 ! l , . '
t i i . (ChirTt. IM M o W rs) ,
- e. -s e e e . -e r.e
~
w
REQUIRED FOR DITIONAL MANNI G APPROVAL l IN PVSUC. .S ERVICE OF INDIANA GA/QC. DEPARThfENT ATTACHMENT 0 GENERAL
' TO EXEL VTIVE -
ggggggt ggggyrgyg
~
0FFECER c ypic.s g E . K . 4L - l y . 4 VIC E PRES IDENT m b) SENIOR VIC PRES DENT 4 VICE FRES 80E NT l . E, OF PER$0NHCL & ;* h *
- y .- -
M A NNING C OMMITTEE 4 TREASVRER b. Monsger 6)osancien or artnAnons reques+s per russion +a herc c} PER$0nMEL MANAGER M'*! C T Pl *7** .J
& DIREcion as bPProtes or das- approvei, FoWGR PM00lle, sea D. C. Appreves er dos- spresyse. .
I u D.; Arreuves au- .tos - appe oves. Af this point addslienal. very de+aIIed jusfilication is unquired far- addittenal mannsn3 i M E. Once a rove d by +he mannone cornmi +$s the repes+ is ihen forwardet V:C E- to the Preside n+ who , sided by 4he ' PRESIDENT OF E Vice President o} rinance , V,^se Presodee NUCLEAR .SERVICLS of Meeso r'neI o sn/ }fe .Se nior Vs e e q Pmside n1, can dus. approvs or ePPNVe h or ask Jar rno.re j usiilication for lhe e oldiflensI
- rn k nn its *
- 6. P.S.1. Gene ral E2 e c"v ive. oWicer than U -
. recie ves the requesi, If it has been
_ spyro ve d to +his Poinf. He also QUALI,TY cart 'appraes, dis- o ppro ve or ask for ASS URA NCE ads { s +1on a l j us il lic ation l0r MANA G ER (napn,n3-a H. Assis +s ac, r,I .sseev11v< 0Hice
, f in Ot.C Uin n rna k ny.
y I Lo QUALITY ASSURANCE l S UPER VI S O R A.
I ATTRCHMENT E
- y ,
, G4s National Enarb of Entfer anh Prrasure Ersnel 3nspe r i E P. MAfNetSoes. Esecutive Caseter anawa.c-L*""""O"'] accumaconseums o =cauu =v=.o .
"~
Y.,*.Q*"' a = c-mam,= eon nenoes,.>.v e.
= a.m a '=' * 'e*=i , .
July 10, 1979 * %(,,,,_ cwau.mo=a e r. =o , Mr. Lloyd A. Crews Vice-President of Construction Public Service Company of Indiana 1000 E. Main Street. Flainfiald, Indiana 46168
SUBJECT:
National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectore Umannounced Visit of Jea 12-14, 1979 to Public Service ' Company of Indiana, Iac., Marble Bill Nuclear Generating Station, Iktits il and #2, New Washington, Indiana.
' 3 par Mr. Crews:
In compthe with a r'equest from Mr. Embert L Johnson, Secretary and Chief Inspector, State of $ndiana Boiler and Pressure Vessel Board in his latter of May 29, 1979 to Mr. D. J. wenan=1d, Director of Inspectimes, 4 National Board of Boiler and Pressurs Vessel Inspectors, requesting that a visit be made by National Board Empresentatives to the subject sita to l
' determine if compliance with the requirements of the ASME Boiler an'd Pressure Vessel Code Section III. Division 1. Nuclear Power Plant Components aura being maintained, National Board Representative's Enyal Beckerith, Michani '
! Emule Joe 12-14,and 1979. Charles A11 " _ visited the Marble Mill Nucinar Plant site an i Upon arrival at the Ramada Inn, Scottsburg, Indians on June 11, 1973 j Mr. Charles E. Markel, Nuclear Inspection Specialist N5f4111-N, Indiana { Boiler and Pressure Vessel Board was contacted by telephone. Mr. Markal l joined the National Board Empresentatives at the Marble Hill plant site the norning of June 12, 1979 and remained with them during the remainder of their visit through June 14, 1979. i . On the morning of June 12, 1979 the National Board team viatted the i site officas of Public Service Company of Indiana Inc. and met with
' Mr. T. L. McLarty, Q. A. Construction Manager, and on June 13, 1979, the l ~ Team again visited the Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. site offices ;
i l where they met with Mr. Frank Bodges, Public Service Company of Indiana l
' Q. A. Manager, Mr. Jeff Roberts, Supervisor of Q. A. Design and Procurement and Mr. McLarty. The National Board Teana exit meeting was held at the aand of Lhim June 13, 1979 most1ms. Those attending chasL associng were:
Frank Bodges, Manager QA, PSI
- Chas. E. Markel, State of Indiana Royal Beckwith, National Board Charles W. Allison, National Board ,
Michael J. Houle, National Board ; Jeff Roberta, Supervisor, Q. A. Design & Procurement 7.- T. T.. McT.any. MT. Q. A. Construction Supervisor
- ~~v-
. r; .
- r.
Page (2) Mr. Crews July 10, 1979 Following are the findings of the National Board Team during the - June 12-14, 1979, visit.
- 1.0 Public Service Company of Indiana. Inc.
1.1 Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. , (P.S.I.) is the owner of krbia Bill Nucinar Generating Station. They are in the possession of ASME owner's Cartificata of Authoriza-tions FN-2022 issued February 27, 1978, expires February 27, 1981 for thit il and #N-2023 issued February 27, 1978, expires February 27, 1981 for'the hrble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, New Maahington, Indiana. 1.2. The naa6=* d=en for these two 111n **
- em was September 1975.
The na. 1.2.1 The A. E. and subpontractor's for Public Service r* T -ay of Indiana at this site are; e 1.2.1.1 A. E., Sargent & Lundy Engineers, Chicago T114=aia 1.2.1.2 General contractor; Cast K. Newberg Construction Company, 2040 N. Ashland, Chicago, Illinois 60614. Interim letters renewed m y 20, 1979 and June 9, 1979, expires May 20, 1980 and June 9, 1980; N-class CC Concreta Containment at various fiald sitas-no site audit at Marble Hill; NA, Class 1, 2, 3 Components, Parts, Appurtan==eam, Piping Subassemb11as and Component Supports at various field sites; Class 1-2-3 Fiping Subassemblias and Component' Supports at various field sites; .,' l l no site audit at Marble Hill; NPT-Class 1, 2, 3 Fiping Sub , assemblias and Component Supports at'various field sites, no sita audit at krble Bill, A. I. A., Lambermans Mutual Casualty. 1.2.1.3 Charne Contracting Corporation 7777 hahington Avenue, South Minn== polis, Minnesota 55440. EFTf1375 issued b y 18, 1979 - expires h y 14, 1982. Class 1-2-3 Fiping Subassemblies and Component Supports and Class MC Penetration Assemblias at various field sitas, no audit at Marble Hill. NAd1374 issued May 18, 1979 expires h y 14, 1982, installation of Class 1-2-3 Components, Parts Appurtenances, Piping Subassemblies and Com-ponent Supports and Class CS Core Support Structures at various field sites; no audit at h rble Hill site; A. I. A., Hartford Steam Boilar.. p , t g a e e
-,._-: - - - - m- , , ---
. r. W.y
. .. . w.,
Page (3) , Mr. Crews July 10, 1979 s 1.2.1.4 Stewart Mechanical Enterprises Inc. , 757 Cradylane, louisville,' - Kentucky 40213. NPI-#2274-10 issued January 19, 1979 expires January 19, 1982. Class 1-2-3 & MC Component Parts and Appurtenances and Class 1-2-3 Piping Subassemblies and Component Supports at Marble B1.11 only. Units il and #2; NA-#2273-10 issued Jannery 19, 1979 expires January 19, 1982; Installation of Class 1-2-3 Components, Parts, Appurtenances, Piping Subassemblias and Component Supports at krble Hill only. Units #1 and #2. A. I. A., Lumbermans h tual Casualty. 1.2.1.5 Chicago Bridge & Iron company, 800 Jorie Blvd; Chicago, I111acis
.- 60521. N-f2134-80 issued May 1, 1979, expires b y 1, 1982. Class 3 Storage Tank = at krble Bill only. Units #1 and #2. A. I. A.,
Eartford Stama Boiler. 1.2.1.6 Whalen-Ch11strom Company, Louisville, Kentucky; no certificate of Authorization., Performing re-bar work on containment not under Section III. 1.3 The M -es Dese--- *- - - - * & T = d v '*- - - a = -------d -' -~- 1978
- - ~ . .....
1.3.1 The Design Specification for the Nuclear Power Systems was to the 1974 Edition of ASME Boiler and Pressure Yessel Code Section III. Division 1 and Winter 1976 addenda. The containment vessel was designed to the 1974 edition of Section III, Division 1 and Winter l l 1974 addenda. Concret ion of the ; [ concrete et . v Seat ' l 2 gn
)
l I 1.3.2 Stewart Mechanical Enterprises, Inc. a sub-contractor of Gust T. Newberg Construction Company, the General Contractor, could not on June 13, 1979 determine the Code Edition and addenda the pipe. material they were receiving from Public Service or the pipe material they were purchasing was required to be purchased too.ca June 14, 1979 they were advised by Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. by telephone in the teams presence that the Design Specification Code dates were the 1974 Code Edition of Section III, Div. 1 and Winter of 1975 addenda. Their Code work is being performed to the 1977 Edition of Section III, Division.1, no addenda according to Mr. Barry Cash, Welding Supervisor and Q. A. Inspector. 1.3.3 Cherne Contracting Corporation is a piping contractor for this job. The Sargent & Lundy Design Specification Y-2739-CA, 08-25-78 Cherne is required to work to states in paragraph 123, "All work, material, and equipment shall conform to the following Codes where applicable; i t
- 123.1, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section.III,1977, with addenda and Code cases in effect (see subarticle 113.1)". (See attachment #1). .
I e
._ . .. -s . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . . , _
- - J C".nmT::::
e -u l Page (4) Mr. Crews July 10, 1979 , s Public Service Company of Indiana purchases and supplies Charna. with all Code pipe mateial over 21s" NPS. The majority of tha . material supplied by Public Service Company of Indiana was purchased to Code editions prior to 1977, including material purchased to the 1971 Edition of Section I. That material was also supplied to Cherne by Public Service Company of Yndimna for nucleet uude febricacion and installation. NCA-3251 1.3.4 It an--end annavant thse - '" - d - ammer or the subcontractors j the neces information 4e'
- nee 9uatlyo y..,r. documentation, receiving procedura, etc; could not be determined by either the subcontractors or the National Board Tean.
1.4 Public Service Company of Indiana Inc., tas owner, purchases all material over 23s" diamatar for their sub-contractors, Charna Contracting Corporation, and Gust K. Newburg Construction Company for chair subsidiary Stewart Mechanical Services Inc. e NCA-5261 1.4.1 Public Service Company of Indiana Escalving Inspection consista NCA-4134.4 of checking the part number on the part or material assinat the aca-3461 material manufacturers or suppliers tran==4ttal. No do NCA-3500 actors. The subcontra reca vs t er ==mns o a . . equipment / material issue fors,
. (see seemeh==nt #2).
Puh11e Rarvica Campany of Indiana insists that should the sub-contractor or their A. N. I. find it necessary to review the CNTR's, l or other material or parts data reports they may do so by visiting
*P.S.I. and r ds.
NCA-3800 1.4.2 Public Service Company of Indiana is procuring material and components and supplying their sub-contractor's thereby acting as a antarial supplier. They have audited their suppliar, primarily ITT Gr4nnali, and have besa audited by Cherne for pipe fittings and finages and , fasteners and appear on Cherne's qualified vendor list for those l items only but h=- " --hem hv Stavart Mechanical E=*=r-prises , according to Mr. Cash oc sc--.xs nec-~=1 and
. . . A. Supervisor for Cust K. Newberg Construction Company.
l' NCA-38, '1.4.3
'- 1.4.4 AtthetimeoftheMirian=1 Board visit of June 12-14. 1979 contractor or subcontractor on the f
, to eble .
NCA-1220 1.4.3 Some Certified Mill Test Reports for material procured by Public ( NLA-M40 \- Service Company of Indiana for their subcontractor's which were af
\
"' 4 2:e5" u IMQA-- .. . . ,
+
Page (5) ', Mr. Creits .* July 10, 1979 s reviewed at Public Service Company of Indiana inrHeseed meceHel such as A-515-74-Cr. 65 produced under ASTM A 155-75 Cr. KC53, '* C1. 1 as walded pipe with filler metal added to be ASTM rather than SA, the C.M.T.1. did not indicate the material to be for Section III Nuclear, the class, ASME Section III Code Edition and addenda, a Quality System Cartificate number.and/or as having been audited as required, Haac Treat Charts or radiography film, or applicable information. In addition, as previanniv - e=> =ame of the material supplied was Section I material for Section__IIf i ors. (e=== Aa : _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ ~ , . w= wu- - - .. .uy W WPR as approved by the manufacturers Q. A. (National Annaal-ing Box Company) by ITIG-IPI the suppliers Q. A. (ITI-Crismall
. Industrial Piping), and the purchasers, Q. A., (Public Service Company of Indiana).
f Although it was requested that sous Public Service Company of D' Indiana purch--- orders be made available for review, e-- were. during the three pays the Nacional soars Team was as une earnAs - Rill site. NCA-3252 1.4.7 Information was requested on several occasions during the visit whether the ownat had designated impact testing per paragraph NCA-3252. No answer was forthcoming. l ! -8122 1.4.8 Public Service Company of Indiana has an inspection
. Inspection' Agency to provide inspection and audit services,_ According to ,
Mr. Bodges, Q. A. Manager, ce the init ownere Car The v ava le e on -
. anal Board suouc service E -v y vu - - - - - . i 3CA-3510 1.5 Public Serviet Company of Indiana, Inc., advised the National -
Board team that they, r all responsibility I a-lanc propose to delegate t res icy duuuuuuw Paragraph NCA-3510 defines the "w" t*=e*4*4-=*= naidae as that
=ew, 6== 6 =s , -- r-a wn , corsulcation and stamping for items requirI5g an N symbol stamp and requires the N Certificats holder to retain overall responsibility including certification and stamping.
2 t
/
/
l l ..' . . . an. i i ! Page (6) Mr. Crews i July 10, 1979 , NCA-3551(b) Paragraph NCA-3551(b) in addition, states that the Qte
- Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. . has not been issued an l icate of Authorization forthis mass, nur aus any ochar organ that required Certificate of Ancharization j for this site.
1.5.1 It appears, therefore that the owner, Public Service Company of Indiana having assumed overall responsibility is apparently in violation of NCA-3510 and NCA-3551(b) as indicated above. NCA-3530 1.5.2 PSI may also be in apparent violation of paragraph NCA-3530 NCA-1210 since they intend that the construction of tha NSSS be in i NCA-8000 compliance with the code and NCA-3530 requires an T Certificata NCA-8233.10 of Authorization ,to be obtained for the construction of any item
) Table 8210-1 intended to be in compliance with the requirements of this section NCA-3500 and to be stampe4 with an N Code Symbol.
NCA-3461 1.5.3 In addition there ney be an apparent violation of paragraph NCA-3461 which requires the N Certificate Bolder to be responsible for mu. .iing, qualifying and auditing suppliers of subcontracted services including MDE contractors. There are suppliers of subcontracted services on this site, however under the Code . *hv separently are not responsible to anyons since thara is no N Certsracaca noJ.oer on s.cs. - . NCA-4134 1.5.5 It would also appear that in assuming the responsibilities of at l N Certificate Holder without having obtained a valid Certificate ' of Authorization to use the N symbol, they any also be in apparasic violation of paragraph NCA-4134. l l NCA-3800 1.6 Public Service company of Indiana, Inc., sucolies material to
- their sub-contractors on this site.
N - de as rial identif C appear meet any o re ements o NCA-3800. 1.6.1 Public Service Company of Indiana rerusal to supply Code material NCA-3867.5 documentation such as Certified Mill Test Reports to their sule-contractors for whom they are acting as a meterial supplime, apparently violates paragraph NCA-3867.5. ' 1.6.2 Some of the documentation accepted by Public Service Company of NCA-3867.6 Indiana for material. to be used in safety related Code construction for this site indientes the material is not acceptable for nuclear Code construction and in addition is not documented as required by NCA-3867.6. p 1.7 The owner Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., acting as the , 1 l . l ..
e g, Page (7) Mr. Crews July 10, 1979
~
s N Certificace of Authorisation holder appears to be in appar, ant- violation of paragraphs NCA-1140,1220, 3251, 3252, 3461, 3500, 3510, 3530, 3551(b), 3800, 3867.5, 3867.6, 4134, 4134.4. 5261, 8000, 8122 and Table 8210-1 of Section III, Division 1 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Yessel Code. . 2.0 Cherne Contracting Corporation 2.1 on the afternoon of June 12, 1979'the National Board tasa visited the Cherne Contracting Corporation site officas and mac with Mr. James k rtell, Vice-President and Project Engineer, Craig Jergens, Q. C. Manager.and William Braden. A.N.I. IBf 7448-N, of Hertford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, A. I. A. i for Cherne.
, en June 13, 1979 the Team mac with Cregory A. Eosier, Manager of -
Quality Assurance for Charne at their site office. 2.2 The. documentation submitted to Cherne by their -
, material supplier Public Service Company of Indiana with the l asterial supplied, in some cases consists only of Public Servica Company of Indiina equipment / material issue form on which the Public Service Company of Indiana equipment number and/or the vendor equipment number appears with Public Service company of Indiana tickat number.
2.2.1 No evidence.is available for that material, that the required Code recs.ipt inspection was performed, no certified mill test , reports are available to identify the asterial as acceptable for nuclear code work and that it is in compliance with the design and material specifications Charme is required to work with. l 2.2.2 In those cases where Cherne has been supplied with CMTR, those l documents in some cases are not acceptable since the matarial manufacturer / material supplier Certificate of Authorization or Quality Sysca's Certificate identification and date is missing,ttne , code Edition is not included, the Code addenda and Code class is not included and NCA-3800 statement is not indicated. - 2.3 As a resu1*. of this lack of documentation, Cherne is unable to ~ i use the material with confidence that it will meet the code -l requirements and their , se-ied. not s ao 14, to rvice Company of Indiana, attachment #5, Cherne's information request of b y 3, 1979 to Public Service company of Indiana, attachment #6 and Cherne's information request of May 21, 1979 to Public Service Company of Indiana, attachment i #7. '. ' I i
. -- - - _ _ . . _ . - - - - _ - __ = _ - -. -- - - _-
l l
, 7.. . . .i. c i
. *d.t,qt.#.sr-i l
Page (8) Mr. Crews July 10, 1979 3.0 Stewart Mechanical Enterprises. Inc. ' s
- 3.1 Stewart Mechanf ral Interprises Inc. , is t. subsidiary of Guet .-
E. Newberg Cons *truction Company, the general contractor on this site. 3.2 On Jene 13, 1979, the National Board team met with Ed Guy, Q. A. Supervisor for Gust K. Newberg Construction Company and J. Chris Maron, Project Engineer, Barry Cash, Q. C. Inspector and Welding Supervisor and Terry Vicitoe, Q. A. document control, both of Stewart Mech =4e=1, in the Stewart site trailer offices. ' 3.3 The Team was advised that Stewart Mechanical Enternrises. Inc.
. was surveyed by an ASME Nuclear Survey Team on site on January 19, 1979.
3.4 Mr. Guy, Mr. Cash and Mr. Vititoa stated, as did Public Servica mas j RCa-4134.7 Company of Indiana representatives previously, that all meterial
; NCA-4134.8 over 2 " diameter was purchased by Public Service Company of Indiana and supplied to llewberg who la turn acted as a material supplier in supplying Stewart Meeh=a4e=1 Enterprises, Inc., and that er
. See attachment #8). hh14e _,
on e i 3.5 On June 13, 1979 Stewart representatives stated that they also NCA-4134.8(a) - receive some fabricated pipe subassemblies from Public Servica
- l NCA-3800 Company of Indiana but do got receive any documents other than confirmation from Public Service Company of Indiana that the piping sub-essembly is acceptable for inse=11= tion.
Mr. Guy of Cust K. Newberg Enterprises, Inc., stated that Newberg i in transmitting the material from Public Service Company of Indiana I to Stewart Mechanical did not consider themselves a metsrial suppliar, did not have a Quality System identification and verification program and had not been audited by Stewart Mechanical Enterprises Inc. , 3.6 Stewart Mechanical at their Iouisville, Kentucky shop purchases
- NCA-3867.6 small diameter pipe less than 2h" in. diameter for use on this site. Receiving inspection is performed at Imuisville (see attachment #9) and sent to Stewart Mechanical at the Marble Bill site with the CNTR. ,
The CNTR does not indicate the material is for nuclear work, does not include Code Edition and addenda dates and does not include the material manufacturers Quality System number and expiration l date or stacament of audit to NCA-3800 as required by paragraph ! NCA-3867.6 (see attachment #10). There was no evidence that ( U. S. Steel Lorain, the material manufacturer had been audited l by Stewart. .
.I -
.a
) .
1
. . d . ..
Faga (9) Mr. Crews July 10, 1979 3.7 on June 13, 1979, the A. N. I. Herbert Moran National Board' . number 6182-N-5, an employee of Stewarts A. I. A. . Lusher'amns .- h tual Casualty Insurance Company was not on the site. The A. N..I. Previously as' signed to Stewart on this site by lumbermans were C. W. Bryant National Board number 4292 and Coorse Deacon National Board Number 7905. 3.8 The National Board team returned to the Stewart & chma4a=L trailer site office on June 14, 1979 to meet with the A. N. I., Barbert Moran. Be stated he spends part of his time at Stewart &chanical Imuisville shop inspecting piping subassemblies fabricated there for the k rble Hill site and part of the time at the site. Be stated he had this day inspected his first veldad joint (tack welds) for Seawart at the site, being on the central service water lines. 3.9 Mr. Moran produced a considerable number of NFF-1 k nufacturers Data Report form & on June 14, 1979 for the Mational Board Teams review. . These NFF-1 Data Imports cover pipe material and spool pieces procured by Public Service Company of Indiana for Stewart. The material is ylpe wit.h dem Ivug seats wulded with filler metal added (SA 155 KC 65 Class 2). All of this material is termed
" spool pieces" although auch of it apparently had no fabrication performed other than the long naam. (See attachments ill).
1 3.9.1 When asked why the Nationa} Board Team had been informed the previous day that Public Service Company of Indians supplied no documentation for any meterial procured for Stewart and that no documentation of any kind was available for review at Stewart, 3.9.2 The material apparently is documented on NFP-1 data forms because its design and procurement preceded the Code require-ment to report such welded piping on MM-1 data report forms. ' NCA-8415 3.10 No documentation was presented for review covering the piping sub-assemblies fabricated at Stewart b ehanical Enterprises, Inc., Ionisv111e shop and shop inspected by A. N. I. Moran or others. - l 3.11 Stewart-Louisville apparently prepares the travel r for Stevert NCA-4134.4 Marble Bill site and includes the SA-material. Stewarts-Marble NCA-4134.8 Hill Q. A. h aual in paragraph 5.4 requires the welding supervisor to record the identification of the material on the traveler. The' identification serial number on the Louisville receiving report with the identification of the ites and that number is added to the traveler at the Marble Hill site. e * .
.e ,
, f4- I >
, west 8 -
,-asau.r.
'- W .W ,x M e d.,';S.g
~
Page (10)
~'%:;-
m . ca ... July 10, 1979 fj e, .. 3.12 It appears that Stewart Mechanical Enterprises. Inc., are in, - apparent violation of paragraphs NCA-4134.4 NCA-4134.7, NCA-4134.8, NCA-3800 NCA-3867.6, and NCA-8415. 4.0 Chicago Bridge and Iron Company i . 4.1 The National Board team visited the Chicago Bridge & Iron Company site trailer office on June 14, 1979 and met with Fred Lusch, welding and Q. A. Superintendent and J. Trickle, Welding Supervisor of Chicago Bridge & Iron. The A. N. I. Bruce Montana National Board Number 8130 was not on the sita at the time of this visit. It was noted that C. M. Duckae NBf7740 and Donald Donoho NBf3981 A. N. I. for Nartford Staam Boilar had also been on this aits for Chicago Bridge & Iron. . 4.2 Chicago Bridge and Iron had left the site in March, 1979 and had returned June 13, 1979. l J capacities to 112,000 gallons for 15 psi and low vacuum. They are working to the 1974 edition and winter 1975 addenda of Section i III. The vessel parta are formed and sub-assembled at Chicago Bridge and Iron Greenvilla, Pennsylvania shop. They propose to field assemble 16 such class 3 vessels ad have field assembled one (1) to'date, which was NB number 4217. It has not yet been hydrostatic coated and signed off by the site A. N. I. 4.4 chiesgo Bridge and Iron had an ASME Nucisar Survey on this site in January 1979. . 4.5 According to Mr. Lusch, Public Service Company of Indiana does not procure material, parts or appurtenances for Chicago Bridge and Iron. . 4.6 Chicago Bridge and Iron welding procedures available on this site were reviewed and the following apparent Code violations vers -noted; QW-200.1 4.6.1 Non-essential variables are required to be listed and described QW-201.1 on WPS per paragraph QW-200.1 and qw-201.1 of Section II. 4.6.1.1 s QW-410.5 QN-410.6 4.6.1.2 4.6.1.3 The VPS did not list the uma af r.cn -e=114e ae =^=-fus4 == retainers QW-410.13 ~ l Per parmsrayn ywy- Av.Aa. 1 l t _ _ _ _ . _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . , _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _
l l
-. . . .e
. 3:M i * *?
l l Page (11) Mr. crews i July.10, 1979 . .
~
QW-402.10 4.6.1.4 The WPS did not indicate the root spacing per paragraph QW-402.1Q QW-201.1 4.6.2 WPS 7018/73030 Rev. 1 June 10, 1977 LBR had been revised by crossing out 'Ser4n==e *== and inserting ' weave ba=d *=a--- J. That 1.1. The , l 1 5.0 Uhalen-Chilstros. Louisville. Kentucky and Milwaukee. Wisconsin I Whalen-Chilstros company is a sub-contractor of Cust L Newberg ! S tion
. ._ --- - .a en wta ieuw c. 4r4,.g.
n .. - .. - - 1. , .- e ,or ,. do ,. ,. . . .... ., I ~ --= eh=enfore not visited av the u=e 4 -- i u---a +- . ! ) . 60 Jasmundasaans , ] 6.1 Public Service C y any of Indiana, lac i
, 6.1.1 Since Public Service Company of Indians, Inc., has stated that only they will assume overall responsibility for Code compliance with respect to material, design, fabrication, installation. ====4am-tion, testing, inspection, certification and secaping, it is the
"= *4 - = 1 ma=*d's opinion that the - '= A*w c=ce4 f f M Authorizae<- saoua - .m.--men .- e 41 such +4- == ww -
; . - - - -- er ==" _. Anc., Da4 Ob*=i-^' = *=14A Certif4*=ce l ar ^=* hriaation to .;; cas mana - a . A l sad have en w e=4 e u -- - - -- . _ __ -- -- = ----=cea xn paragraph 1.7 of this report. ,
i 6.1.2 It is the National Board's opinion that Public Service Company
. of Indiana, Inc., actin as a material supplier of ASME Coda matar to the i as lic ev e any i Indiana u- _w ._ r a 1- all of clas myylleable e-'- -- -! Mr.A-3800 of Section III of tas ~ .. - .. ==a rressura Vessel Code.
6.2 Stewart Mechanical Enterprimes Inc. 6.2.1 It in the Motional Board's opinion that Enter-prises, Inc., should ted in paragraph 3.12 of this report without delay and sho cease , timine material fnr AetwR herirwi TTT code fahvicarinn isncil te can be identified as meeting the requirements of Sections II and i III of the ASME Code.
- l 6.3 Chicago Bridge and Iron Company.
6.3.1 It is the opinian of the Nations: Chic t a they now have on t Nuclear plant site until such time as those specifications and their revisions meet the ' requirements of ASME Codes Sections III sad II. .
, , g
'" 5% .
i . Page (12) Mr. Crews ' July 10, 1979 4 s J 7.0 Other apparent Code violations may exist in addition to those indicated in paragraphs 1.0, 3.0, 4.0 and their sub-paragraphs of this report and it is recommended that Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. , Steuert Mechanical Interprises, Inc., and N a--a Bridge and Iron Company, review in depth the applicable ] parts of Section III*and II and their respective Q. A. Manuals with their respective A. N. I. and their Authorized Inspection Atency's Inspection specialist. Very truly yours, ( i
~
. 4 Boyal Beckwith Assistant Director of Inspections i
! ER/did
- i ec: William Ward, N= lame Construction Mgr., PSI Arlene Spadafino, ASME Chairman of SC/NC Robert Johnson, Chief Inspector of Indiana Bartford Steam Boiler Ins. & Insp. Co.
Eamper Insurance Co. m44m Potapovo, NEC. ! l Gary Eatcliffe, Pres., Cherne Contracting Corp. ' ! Marvin Mitchell, Pres., CBI l; George Duthie, Pres. Stewart Mac 6 4-=1 Enterprises Robert Luedeking, Pres. , Gust K. Newberg Construction Co. i helosures: Atemeh==nts
*- O i
1 i f t l 5 9 I e
. . - - , . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . , . . __-.__---_.___-.__._-......%,.m... ._ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , - . _ . - _ . , , - . _ . , , _ , , - - . - . - . _ _ , . .
.,_.-.w...,___
__ , -_- C -- d Z " ] ^" j h as FY-r - M 1- ATTMCetEWTN
;$-), .
> SAMGENTGrLUNDY I"2 D
.*- amoimasae en.ca.e CA 08-25-73
%( M k 7'~ ..
r of the TPecification. Furthermore, ignorance is not acceptable as , wgs for any claim whossoever for additional or extra compensation. e 120.2 . contractor shall at all times have a competent superintendent on jg". c,. the premises to represent him and to whom instructions may be given. { ,- Contractor shall maintain a representative on the premises until final acceptance of the WORK has been aheetned from Pur61 =4
,U.*3 Contractor shall properly protect and be responsible for the equip-
! g- ment sad materials to be unloaded and/or erected hereunder, in i
** accordance with manufacturer's instructions, from the time of arrivel k' se the site, until the work is accepted in its entirety by Purchaser, except during such time as said equipment or materials are removed from the control of Contractor by specific instructions of Purchaser.
l Cancractor shall have complete responsibility for the equipment or natorials while being s unloaded and handled for hts by others. h120.4 It shall be Contractor's responsibility to furnish the services of 9 all trades involved in the WORK. * , 120.5 Contractor will Be held liable for 'all repairs and/or replacements i
- r. of any and all associated fact 1&ct. damas*J =s a result of said k Contractor's activities in the area, subject to Purchassr's accept-asce.
gg gepCE WITH 10 CFR PART 21 g . R- The work indicated in this specification and/or on the drawings as G. gr Safetv-Retsted requires the application of the provisions of F- rgete go, chapter 1, code vt Federal Rett:14tions. Part 21, Reporting f.' of pefecas and Noncompliand's (10 CFR, Part 21). It is the respansi-T bility of the Contractor to implement the provisions of 10 CFR Part 21-
$ insofar as they are applicable to the ceatr==ese's Wo.n, usader sais specification.
b - E 122. E Rgv!SION OF SPKCIFICATION AND AWARD TO CONFORM 10 PURCHASE ORDER
~
within six weeks af ter award, and at option of Purchaser, Contractor h will revise his proposal 'to conform to the actual award. The revised y' proposal will incorporate all changes up to sad including the award. The specification will be similarly revised by the ConsultinR Engineers. 3* CDDES AND STANDARDS All Work, meterial, and equipment shall conform to the followinR codes where appitcablo: (1I .s .
, f 1
I / j23 Aggg gotier and Pressure Vessel Code Section til - 1977, with addenda M med code cases in effect (see subarticle 113.1) . j [ g23,2 ANSI Standard Code for Pressure Piping AMS1531.1 - 1977, with all applicable addenda (see subarticle 113.1) . d' . 1-u 3 , (, i
.+
l 3
, g:t . .. ,.,, w g r e l
- f; a sARGENT & LUNDY Y-2739 'NT" l
' ' CA 08-25-78 i
; " " e.* 1* ! "
- ATTsenm'enywj p.fr
'+ 4 ..
W24 LIIgo.10 The words " nuclear safety related" are used in this Specification to i desisas te systems, subsystems or pieces of equipment that comprAse '. 5 systems that are required to accomplish the safe shutdown of the ! S nuclear power plant or that are required to operate followiag a
- f. postulated accident.
1 Wherever Work is indicated as being by " Piping Contractor", P.C. . N 109.11 or Y-2739 Contractor, it, shall be construed as being work by Con-
- , tractor as covered under this Specification Y-2739.
In b The term " rough set" shall be construed to mean " set within 1 inch 4 39.12 of final position". kgg,13 Wherever " Class A, B, C, D, or G piping" is used in this Specification, it shall be construed to mean the S&I. pipe classes defined in paragraph 113.1 hereof. 110. SPECIFIED PRODUCTS AND SUBSTITITTIONS 7 Nantion of materiala, or components by name as products of certain
, asaufacturers in this Specification is made to insure that the proper quality and/or type mis provided. Products of other manufacturers will be acceptable if Contractor furnishes proof to the Caemulting Engineers that the proposed substitute products are equal en er betese than the specified products in quality, performance, design and suit-
{ h ability for the intended use.
/ .
Contractor agrees that no components of any nature annufactured out-side the U.S.A., Canal Zone, Puerto Rico or Virgin Islands shall be included in his scope of supply unless specifically agreed upon in . g writing by Purchaser. If any foreign fabricated components are
- included, Contractor shall, upon notice in writing, replace then
[ entirely at his own expense, including installation, and shall be liable to Purchaser for any damage to Purchaser's plant and any losses L due to any delay caused Purchaser by such replacement. t
- 2. CUALITf ASSURANC1*AND CONTROL As set forth in Purchassr's Quality Assurance Specification " Piping System Installation", Nov. O, 6-30-77, Y-2739.
i Yr '
! I !!3. 'Hf' SECTION III DESICN SPECIFICATION REQUIRE.M L
II gg3,1 C assification (NCA-3253):
- s. e piping furnished and/or fabricated under this Specification is classed as Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 piping per Sectisa III of ASME botter and Pressure Vessel Code, Non-Section III piping per the i
ANSI Stand.ird Code for Pressure Piping - ANSI B31.1 or Non-Section III piping per acceptable industry standards. l I 1-14 P [ . .
s t:' , . .y . [
. . i SARGENT Si L. UNDY T-27'PJ
- " " $.' E"ee" "
- CA. nM-25-73 ArraeHMeh/T'%
1
?
past 3 cF3
- g. The section III class 1, 2 and 3 piping shall be designed and' con-f,. structed in accordance with the rules of the respective subsection ,
(, (NB, NC or ND) of Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The Non-Section III AWI B31.1 piping stia11 he designed and
.i constructed in accordancs wic1 the rules of the ANSI Standard Code
( for Pressure Piping - ANSI 821.1 ce per acceptable industry standards. m. For Owner's purposes, e' ch individual piping line (or system) classi-
, fr c. fication is as designated in the Piping Line List (coluen 7) forming l a part of this Specification, as follows:
- k. Code S&L Piping Line Classification List Classification
[. ' A cl.1 Section III - Class 1 piping............ . 3 F,I c1.2 Section III - Class 2 piping............ If C cl.3 Sen.slon III - cidae 3 piptag............ g
; c2. Non-Safety.Related tesory II Piping-J 1
Code S&L Piping Line i ), List Classification Classification g l r c2.1 ANSI B31.1 Olon-Section III) piping..... D 1 c2.2 Non-Section III per industrial s tanda rd is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C 3,
- Document Distribution NCA-3256 (Section III Fiping):
) 113.1 '
l Owner will file a copy of this Specification with ths enforcement l l h authority in accordance with Section III of the Code, Paragraph NCA-l b 3256, before the system is ptaces ta service. k - , j i
- b. Any comununication between the enforcement authority and the manu- l l
I
-- facturer or installer shall be sent to owner for forwarding to the l l
' f respective party, unless Section III of the Code states ocherwise. - h in the latter-. case, copies of the correspondence shall be sent to l E Owner for prior acceptance before being forwarded. I.
- c. Owner will file a copy of this Specification with the inspector at
( the manufacturing site and erection site before construction begins. L I j g. Manufacturer shall provide the Inspection Agency with the necessary E namsber of copies of his Quality Assurance Manual, in accordance with - Section III of the Code.
'A 1-15
- f. - .
t V . .
- l.
F
. , . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - _ _ . - . - _ ~ _ . . - _ _ . . . _ - _ . . . . - . . _ _ _ . _ . ~ - . - . . _ _ . _ . . . _ - . _ . _. -. . .
- g. . . . . . . . - . . . .
- 3. .,- ,_
g . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. A, ' . . . . . . . . . . . . .
e i g . . . .. . . . . . . I mI . . . . . . . _ I g . . . . . . . . . . . . - a,
~~
b y 3 9
. . . . . . 4 . . . .
1 h- . - . Qb j l 4' ** ' W 3 {L_
- Sg E.E.s.
d - e e- g -an M3 E !2 1 5 g
- @ y s
i 4 a - . SM = 5 lll* U 3 0
, , d C E (g 6 E m -
, . [cM, .
m-g ge
< aan I
= .
*=I E
~
- gg .
-C % . . . . 4
< g . . .
ga . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- gg .N
=- . *1 . . . . . .
. . . . . . . i li s=- g g b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g t
~
k 4 ( .
, . . . . . . e. . . . . . .
g6
= - - .. A G . . . . . . . . . . . .
%S
- h. .
. f
. E . . . . . . . . . . .
-fa
. % & enn q . gild
. . m. . . . . . . .
'.lt.' 2 r .r .; W g
, f, ante.g a
.'g- . ,.. <
g"9= . . . . . . . . . . . . . s
'm> %
ay ~. . ~. . . . .
. . . g
_w g ,
.n. . . .
5 5 1 J y e g 9*
- p. , g . , . . .. . . . . . .
.. . . . 'h,3 ,
s 5 ' E W.
- e
~ '
" ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ -
6 gg .'e ,.< M 9.l I.. =f. I c. . = d- - [ .
=
g . . . . .. . . . . .
.!)- g i
SI. i!I m.. g s s - >r,. mmm 2 'l,
**T w..h' -
%. r. . . .23.
lYa y o JRi 42i
]
a, 1 b.yg.
>. ?~'--l ...~t... *A'; . . .. .
. . ..f. 1 ..
1- --- / - -.1___
- _ .___.. _ -_ _.__ _.__ _ __ _ _._ ...,..a .._ .__ _ _ _ . .,,__ ,_ _ .. _ _.._ _
l ; . ti t {[:! i !' l! f .! , { ,l i N
~
o I i ! ! l i m,' );. )
~ I
_ a n s n - -
. c e
o o _ o x i _
- o ,-
C L l g!! ! _1 i i ' L, l m_ ~D,' V 5 .,v . U 5 7 9 A C I o g, '- C- 5 0 . _ C N'Y I AN 6
- 1 _S n
- 3
- C V.
n H Y P l i;l' 7 2 0 8 2 ,[ 6 2
') ! . l 0
2 ) s m_ i_, O V. M?T A 1 " A 0 0 )s O s 0 2 )s a c g e 0 O C i mCO C 4r b i s G Y n t 6 s fi t 7 ., S [c u v i Lsr . t
. s r .
t r _. AE H ge
- g. 7 e
i 3_ T 7 1 ( i 6 1 ( i 1 0 {_ _ EF TT C n J_ 0 9 0 RO R ei 5 s. o . 0 5 . _ 0 0 0 0 , OS ge 3 1 A 5 6 Ia : a v v s. 3. M,_, . 8 3 h, 1 9 4. 3 1 6 0,
,CD DO R .
D 0 , 4 EC g w. N I c a ' 6 7 J 6 7 6 7 lC l
^aT h}
;l I l!
, 1 iI S , s T
- U. p (p i A 4
- ~ S
_ R EH CT - l
's!
L i u 7 2 A i _
.. ANo
- 3 mQMo
- A E q
5 f ,'_- e m I_ 8_ k_ . 2 TI
. s i E , W - _ DA _
U D 1 m %a n ,h )!_ . D p mOC - H y
;am W f /._ _
s . 3 T A 'i n . 3 ( O : t, ( r : f r N E E QECR nph E
. as T T A H O S gLA f.nA C J i 0 0 r f g_- us 1 I 1 ,
1 1 1 M s 2 2 3 H 39 E H 2 2 [2 2 gt f 0i , s p..C R [ - -
. :a p
6 2 4 2 32 '20 3 i
?
1 2
. a QT E P p n 0 0
0m . 0 0
' a, l .
- _ l i
o 5 3 1 i
'5 l i
' s A
l n i A 0 0 O 0 g e 4 0 e . i
- t. M '
C C C. . 0 C 0 0 - m 5o 2 . . . L + NW,M O a r o c u hM I n
. 6 8 3 1
8 8 8 T a o a u 8 8 8 8 8 1 8 8
; m
- P a , . A, . r I - N( s u r
- I l:
?. 3 5 2 2 5 k 5 2
5 2, y [ 1 ~s T. - .
/ n .
O ~ 8 u u 2 n e . E. 1 0 8 9 1 2 - - P v 5 8 9 8 9 8 N a r e t R Ye m 1 1 0(1 7 5 1 0 7 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 7 1
~
i h J i
- I 2 2
3 0 3 0 1 2 O - e P 4 2 $ Ea a 2 In 4 - 8 2 0 n Me 1 , r f - 2 *
" o a 8 o 9 r o 9 e i
a C 1
' h o s 8 s 0 s 9 e s
d 5 l 1
- s n c s i s I N n r uN G *
" s 7 J r
6 5 C J c c i 7' J t 5 C J s e k m r a
- 0 E
u r x 1 a
. c e c c
, 5 N Es n r
u n t n t e h .. y O g A C S G W_Tg.tM R N ni r C / C u u.n u Cq i. t u? 6 0
?
n C. t' C ' p, N D 8 g D M.' M. :6 n( N.
" P u P u P ,
- / '
0 ll I 5 88 1 5 S h S 2 s 0
'5, l
0
- i s
u o_ e
- ! .. ; jI
I i 6.
, I -l ,
ll l
* .m.... , ., . .,
l y
.e 3 'u I w I u $3 w I W 8 * {' '$ l W i
- O O O O O 0" 1 1. ' O 4
. ..... .- .. . ... .. C * . ' .
-!! C C " gl ,
> s Q} ol . . .
C O .C , ,'; C'
; o u x :.-t 4 " _
a g- , r*g qN ma (N N r (;'~ s w , 4.. in
,,, l> i N -
.N 'q N i ,y J. ,, . . ' .' . <=== , . .. ,_ . na==. .e s. *
^
R Ye (Q L ( en ==
',N - -
es i es et a g a
- g "*i s : w -
w e,
. .e, c., , .,, e. ~ .
w e. 5 e- N si. @ e- E
. e. -
.... w . m.
f*= *= 1, *=
- , l m r - a- n l, p. e m C r-~ F >
.am 1
M$e.. m. 5h.
- 3. .: m.,.$.,
8 88 88 88 8 8
- w. m.
N m. e m.. m. e.,, m. 8.8 9 m ro g N r g w
%o g r .g. e
~ 9 .. _
m e- c- - so g, w-
, )n J
.nf l L
8J H
? 19 1 l_e I
, 5! 3 t'
l h 1 pigM_-!3 o - i 6 3 - P ,41 % 1 o' *>
' .n. '
i i 34 'm >= c.) 4
'i f "
* '"I '
gZ e .l * ' C ""'" P* a a.s ( a *8 $ i 5 .a 3)" 8 JL 4 N w > a' 1. (g 2 - N N e o e e - - o Nc- o No ' J. O II fW & o' i
- w < . N. N. N. . . N. - -*
.. N N N.
2 . .
'Z t,) X fFl N N \C X d qq A fv N N N :
8 8 s rei
- a. s J.3 -- .
e . .
. s e.
a . a . s i n . 8 7J
- m-
< < e 8 8 8
- 3 9
. t ' . - . - . . . . . IS $ . . 3 . 8-a O C e w =: m "m
- o. m e e e
- a. 9
- .- g e-.., E.
a cu. :u. a r. ..
- r. r- c.:
1 < , - . .
= = .~ c Z g
. , c -
, N. N. N. N. m N . N m m N u =.. ., (x
,c, N
1 . . . . . gg CT r=. , ) t:r, cr,.7
' r- e e-r O cJ - 22 C.: "
* == cv I g,r" , ca,.,,
, rm a.: r- a r.. r- cu r -,
i fn en - e tr M* h, er.
- e == ~'
I C - - ev , ce< en ! . N ih5 o rei C b) te en 0 38 (V y N xe ,se 01 l \
*A R
t .
- = l.;g N Q" ,
8 , 6
.w 1 O 2 '
..,e . am x e. c, n. e.
t="a3
$4t' e- .* um
- p. e a) c O n 2 L 7 *-
C"' O O a ei r, ou h. P C
- V 1R y et y su' es z.'- et , a'- we **
3 O t=
& w y en Q en V 89
, , bY f** r w w 5.J .W
\Q i 9
- Q "2 gg , "w"J ft. . D
@ tas
, to W.
' .x e. %nO D ('*= 58 O e *M . 8> e 'd
- g as e as
- y. y
.. *" ar . . w - M i
'- trl w y y w C = w w w w y u i
- O wy r c :P
- w u '
kJ 123 It 3 w e. . Jr. y U r-
%g y
as ur -. C N.'t u um. .
'u %c C'x v e . U.
C
'c U gg weg' I.
wi%, n eu nw 2 ,, c we c, i 3 .n (\ e . in s.j Z. enw se%d: Z. en (Nt 'a'. *N a.
. K*. 2 3 A 2 1 m L a 4 2 A wi w . e40
- a 3 A 3 Q.
a z a w
?I * .e C O O M C t
= z :
- p, ,
- 4k e x e .:s e r O O (
tr' . I = T, f i i a e x : .= 1 1
' e.
=
tt" l = q) I = O t
, CIh tt,) C.,9, Q.3 s3 (O ' k Q) M CO -- ' rT 4 "
+ " " ' " " "
=
t.S
** * 'C =
' O~l*
_.n.__.-,_.__.._-_.-- _ _ _ ._ _ . . _ . _ _ . . . . . _ _ , . - . _ _ _ . , - , _ .
p i
.f
- l
} .
}' y' . - . -
1 q f, t w I u I w
. 1 -
p=l , I u o o 8 w I w I * " ; o o /
- 4
- la tt Ol 0 t 74;*' ll 0 l '
\ u<
ev Q.
- C. O ic .- 3 i- .a,
- o. C .
ed
= ,N e -
N ic r
$ N N N N 2 ^ ' N (\
.P p W.7 s . 81 e:
e c - a-. - o - cu a-g -e m m m . ,c - O n c' . c. 1 N - ,. - - - -
,e,
- 1
,e. ._.
N
. =
o ml-e a.
= - ,
t w o
.=i -
j i
) (m )
s 8 8 W, C. a 8 8 8
-u m - _N 8 8
_.a . .(r 8 8 m-88 ,d-8
- r
.. . it'. C.X.
.u- C' o.
e r-- r4 C'.1M .
- 8 , e-lr*n r-C4 r% r+ b t' - No M c O NO o -
t'a= r -- N r* Me-N. , e i i l 3 i O . N U m, . 1
-~,,,
C
- "l a
- e. W l LY c-. . . , .
b g l ' ."
.. # \
O r
'Z C.
. w a
f- g23 ** I m 2 -o E>dij g l * ,
t I. c c M n;=
O gk Z g '% N l
.], t-c .J i
. ta
>=
W ye.g y{ [_' -
~
p 8 " El @
<2ltu .
g i
- - m - n ey
, O{ 2 3 ,
N. N N N i- & N oa N
. N. . N. ,3 N N N N U
. . . N. . .
t
*f, :Z. 2 en c c O'o 4y d g N C tri rel o o cv im
\
l c O er er x. o cr' N
- l rr .= fr n o o o o o g g N N
< _i , i e 5, - _
e e, r, i:5 c o el 8 S. 8 ic , e in z 1 ua . . 5- 8 . 8 8 - 8 8 8 8 8 O i' s y c,m
. . . . . .l .
l p a C3 === CJ CJ cra c~ w .=- e = => .= x
.- CJ.
< i
. . UJ. 0.) 3.)
. . 3J.
CO C.: QJ. CC C3 ' g . 43le N* y} .s wj r- s0 r s= 1
*i N
C]' . i. S: 0.4 N., s 1 I
.=- r N W N te 0;
,.W ej G j . . . . .
.l
\ Sfz '.) -~ t' E
.=- a) \C
= => r%
.=- m r9' f
.=-
W 8
*3*
", \O c" \D r% r- > t9",
t- e c,e-t c g ' C3 - -- \C t'a-aj - ('s =t'=.- \C r'a= tt u = tr 2F m.- c~ cr tvi - tv m (e
.a .A* ~ o re- o er o
{ .w "
# ~
x= N N g
=
O E
.s=,
f @ & j E) ') g O \Q O **"
- Q "*A O ** '4 A b Ay '
i? M O - -" Y w d
"" =" 4 3
l - O a fJ M m N
."* M' n
- ar @ m C'
d 'O 3() U g ** V w tu w,t
.s- .="
M CT 4f1 cg . O "") C) U n.,
"Q " ~
O
.sa . - es .- -=::"' **
1
"') C) a.s ! U U E o o . l'
' I'"'
4 \C
~3 0,2 '
NO
""3 O t%
"3 tr n.s
*'"J !!"',
wi
~J um, rw t-
>=
SJ 5 + * *
- a4 U U = = "
33 b U U Gw 45 l C V z gzb bl O C W 2 C W
= C =
W w U . . . .. -. . b 6
.< *2 \C U +
\C U \C U-C = C m
, UF -
- uf% . \4' W d g=* $
+6 mO f2- etN
- Jr% . vrw .
\f, oc h'.
e 4g
- m\fi we%.
- l. <* W w f( 2 we C\
r* . < 0- JN
. 2 - .,
3 Q. .
- D Q.
= 2 C. F wisc 3 Q.
v r=-. Z.
.n%c e.s".
*i
_w _- 3 C. Q. :
* ** ' * # 8 C.) er' N t.
=.s.
n, II N - 8 I I r.t I e a e N , If i Lc s .:- t a .=
."i 4, 3 Q.) - 2 c) c'J sn t- ,I.f*'. # -
.a .C. . . U" .. Lt'N NO -
tn rw *= i - 1 1
- - I i l' h t"t ' .
. . l l
l
"""'" * " ~~- --
) . . . . . . . . . .
~
9 * =
- 1 w
, 3 o o
_ , , . . . nasn arer ..es
. . . - - 9
.bt d il e e y
.u Sj.
e
,P e
M S-.m- . e-a s.*
=
- a. ~ e.
__~ !. ' 3 n x __ .. _ _ . .!.m
. ,.-3 o'a4 1
,, l
>d , g. - g .
- a. . . m: ,
e . -) .
'd 5 '
,m e' "- _d. i .., s- -
il if.. f ;j 4 cm i ii 83
. 9 8!
m ,8 i
?
2 W N p O *
. ~ O ,
- N
~~~~
n 1 - ~O =
.t_ -
g e U . . . ,e I e l l. J . *l ~~* OA q 3 "'
-(. g 4
x 1 g / w - i l x .a.. $l-lEk-tm4 J o m #n- r 'Ec%.
. . , , c . ,.. eeU_5ce q,_; - c_. o
\ .
.- .: . e e# v a 5. ,bs.!.
Of,i a z w . r g3g-
.@. *1
< r.-
J ,., o
= # -
~
=
m:% em4. ,.
- .. m _
( .g i .U. ~ *- - - -
- m. . .
N "e, e P '* d N *
. yS U'wI t a *
- N.
N
. O eri e1
. ya sr g g
= _
-e a u g e. %
~
4 d< 4 8 8 *
- 8 8 -
a e s _a _ *
- jg '
T C = v1 4 I g M g g T 9 % __ z
~.
. ==
O .' - a w ' . e = 'c' - h ! 9 k9 .
..l . . . j l__L .! . -
d h i' *i-" I? T'i '-C ' ' 1 Z . d m tt m M C Q o i
- m. m.
. er
. . . 8
= .- g a .
o > .1I m p= T w => = e i-g - m
~
- o C
.$$ .,. F 3 .e, o o F M p.
N N a < v see f w C r : he e. e 88" N &
.. 1 E e.
O @ e, d k E 1 \ 8# M M > W U n 2 U C es o a C w
- 3. m g it' y we m u ens tta u
%m- . 6 O W 3 a -- - --- - * - - * .
sO I .
- - - 7 * . a w. w
.mV *""""-- -, e., z . . . -
's $a e
I k u s u un u = _.~. . .. *.
* < _. .. ' ~
m R.s ij . 6, w n Oa ud O = C z a su M e*\ e'IW5 33 s i
- v. w u J f' .
as o we vi o 4e C 'u c.* Z. mm * ' . and
=o i w a.
g ec a c as.
. g p -> a.
e w u, a.
- g.
- t I M 8
=
Oa, M t
= _
o. an . i C th l .= fel se r's e,,
'/te . * . . W <. ..,.. . _ _ _ * ,
Q -sj.o. #fncNft***Y-#3Funcnass p.e. mars . edll> c;-f ;, .e, ,,,,. osofereo; - ffn .ean *M a~*a=^g~ ........ wa,g. / - . i
! '( ) /' . - '
. i seeresas peo.
62T60 IS/lF/rF BEIN 6 0@0i.Y 4 WON:s Accga0 rN anat osota pa swoece eso. NOMEnfEAU'WONKS i 57284 lt/31/FF TU L4We DEP:l:aES ANo S AY$ tr33485 143-19310 NONE6TEAO, P4.' 15t te . l ' i m ULE 15.435 . 't 6 t TNAI THE CHEMICAL 4NALYS6 ANU/8R TEST RESULT 5 AHOWN CATIONAL *NNEALINs 804 COMPANY ]N ist$ ItEPnHT AltE CDQHEC' NATIONAL ANNEALING 80X CONPANT A5 'C8NTAlt.En IN THE COR; P O b0X Sit - WASHINATON PA cAbHINGTDi FA 15301 fe OF IAC C0yPANY ; j l ' M' lw,/
/H$
/f, ,h s
secuatuar i P H Inf s a /s un as 1/tr . 43)M A*31:"T4B GRADD !a PNt.55UNL WE55EL SUALITYe ESCALE ORf NO O IL STATE Of PLNN5fLVANI A ; COUNTY Of tLLEENEl T
- PL r[s
., b SIAISCRINEO AND SWONN TO 3Cr0RE t
- j. Mt L swom T/R t
- 0. g39 i TNis < 1,rr
- ANat,Tsts '
s CAT orpj { anatsalat DtscasPICN
,. c ,
! Ouate. m mya , Itst 08 PECE '86*Ef r. It58tt 888. It0saoA: son % ka,go.
. pp,,3!, l gi'itgr. teno,, niv eswurv usa wsy nr me r
- an.
-s asr6. en sia agree TsCave j p. se6jj-;r y 4 1 203:sa tr e53.7 1s . 0 23.s ,v // -
j i as/64 - es 1 z / . ses h 1 mars 4 F5Cosa - 203191 TC
- 3r. 49.s ar.5 4 .' ,
i d - 1 ss/as 91 l51512/NI- / t/1 t ric5: cett16 19sa45 TC
- 40.4 12. 3
- 9- .
!4 0 AE i"VED r *-
.g - - - = = = -.. . . . r--%.. . ** aman.
,,,,J goni tivZ ,Not Ex., n. A. .
GTi M
- e. ,...
. . 4 # ) BY -/ h_ _ US. k N[,
o 15EUL p .0050 EXT. . 1 C. S@
\ gg3g
! no. c Tves aiu _p is .1 a cu l @ id- V W at u v e to ce <c STVT HLAI ist UU8 Sq 218 [59 Eg i,01 71- h i j
- HEAT j!? ?89 005 lj3b iza12 3 p i AYEP. Oft SI7E 08 ATEL GL SIZE ca I "
- i i.
1 i l i i j
. I i
i - A 6 3 19.. ..
. ! , j
( l. i 'd
.m w- . . , , ., - - _ _ _ . -
l i 7.y! p9Y.4Viin.M.a. iem. f)n6c0NenE$.- * .6.*.E9 punc=4ss oaoss mo.
* ' " " " ~ " " ' '
5ESMk d' i
- e. o. am e r .
i . 4 7 7 6 's t 9/1 T/TT / ~ c- - --. .w v.r. c
.tt o .Ta ei = d. ~ ,= v o.c. o.
4 F I 4 G 0 811. Y .% :1 84 ?. A r t l'4.1.h *8 In LAite sC s'95 r 5 :ar, . 4 Y $
' H81C3fC40 ~s0M3 l 433 44 t/S%/F4 trl1444 161-12407 THAT THE CHrat!CA. t s v 4L Yf r .
1 eil'lCbfEAQs Pa..' lli tJ , i)(Fil$ ge ,or4e _ g60 AWo/nn TEST
- E50tT5 WIWs -
1 I [8f TH[$ RC8' Ski A *f t r 0 4 F E~r CITIONAL AW.A1.fts edi CtelPANY NATIONAL 444EAl.ING Soil c0ppANY s A5 CONTAINE4 IN INr RFCD* I P 0 #0X Sit * *
. WASHINGTON P4 " 0F THE CONp4NY.. ,
- I dASillafGT0n PL 143nt -
P jid..h .
. T 880 NATURE M*We .a ).'* .**_,$.'.8.t '!.
O oArt ol/06/F8 7TTT1-515 745 estAOL *: fuE55URL 7ET5LL WUALITf e DEScALE ORY NU 0 STAT E OF PENNETLv4NI A l , IL . - COUNTY OF ALLEGNEuf i PLATE 5 y - SU85Catet.0 AND SWRs4 in arFARE . THIS 1974 g D A Y O F ," 4,.J MILL $d06 */A - A44Lf S!5 i \ . (f- lM) .
.f V- ~ *-
1 asavgasat.otscaneton gg s . v.cto pt.
"'*** ~ mecc vcusett sta?te.t.=ca teW ja,~ato. *
~
) ' Irf @I tyasAI vs TMete
'<**** KSI wil '" *-
W 551_a^E 1 556 1 22re4 e5c5ss - 2ci5T2 (F 37.6 . r 3. 8._ 7_a.0 , l .. . i ! 1 2564 / 94 t /2 546 1 22764 69ceT4' 194340 g, 37.5 M '/ ' 65.6 27.0 1 25/6 4 98 1/2 186 1 ,22T64 69c4T4 39A341 TC 38.6 66.7 26.0, O~ I 2548 90 1/2 586 1 22764 T5c499-203189 ft A 34.6, T 2. 8 26.0 A' #
/
L- ,t 254 : 93 1/2 435 t 1644,4 68c736 39464T
- 47.0 TT.7 77 5 /$. T-
{ ~ Yt l ? t t5A 4 98 t/2 422h/2 i .1441p F5c499 7036T3 fa, u s4 7- 44s k4M d. '4 -/r 1 , .., . I . k ' f.d, IDil ' of5EUL e .q*40 EWT. ' IPl em '- l gTG a .
*7 i .,, ,,
fu joggItsV'"n{ , r any tvec e n. _e- _s sa l.45.._ . .ps y _ q_ vs ce co r2% WGc a ' i j
~*J Et, HLA1 :D HE4 !!s iD :' UU3 Ud jT9 036 022 l20 i29 l
8 p -M gy E. D r-
]s(.A. ) *g
_h .h
- i' hC RAI4-SIZE "
37 gjg1 j)oM 34 Fi : ! l C RAIN SIZE A4 f 2495 HEA iM !84 004 324 !?!
.g. - 1i % i i C RAIN SIZE #4 ij %5., $r.9 8 - - -
228t att A j!r ja9 005 03t !?3 hTI ~~
~
{ hf; K,'. , j, ' l 0 RAIN SIZE #.? .:1
! ! ! fggf CTh ! -
- i /" !
l s: s
.t C4. i/T / i:.,yA>r l .
..9 * /".M.!1'. l...__.87"Ifht 8iham Mguw w -
m FMrr -- 4 aca .u.ci >. *".I dt-*fcoa ..aewana p,, ,j ".
.r.mnst,urs.ucc*.3n'f(d 62T6D 10/1T/77 s 4 8 or -% gEINr, 7 #E h l Y i6s d f.Q A r E ARu t s-
]
, neiW4=Tli5.. un.t.nnoca no. .wwolla no TO LAWe Dr.PQSf 5 ies '14,Y $ , N0dESTEAO dORKS 49142 1/05/Ta Lrl3445 163=l2604 THAT THE r.HEHICAL 414LT$F'~
HONE 5fLA0s PA.* 15820 ggg,@ PRR Jarste ,Ino AN0/04 TEST RESHLis 5404.
- 3 IN THIS REPORT ARE CARilEr i
- QATIONAL AgqEALINg 302 CONpANY
- NAfl0NAL. ANNEALINe A0g gegpANY s AS CONTAINCn-IN T;4r REC 05 i P O NOX SPg .
WA HINGTON PA nr THE CAMPANT6' p pjp g.2a_.<fN.,,,-[Mjs/ . F 8** CASHINGT04 P4 15301 I e . Y sedNATURE A EhU._(,U, S o carf 0jf I 4514 A=515=T45 GRApt- e3 PME55UllI'""9[55t;L eJ4LI T Y DE5CALE ORY Ntl D 5 TATE 0 0 hs_06/FAVEVDO A * ' IL . COUNTY Or A LLEggEgy
* [DN SUS $cRIBE0 AND SupR4 in Arr04r I PLATES s p Q THl3 -
' MILL swo14 T/R = ANALYSIS i
$p/ 04YOff&<t-
/ ,
'l9F4 ,
% e-8 /
mm ". reasse s =vi.o~ca v < = A ny,o. , l
*** tea *At oascaserson uaam '7
,,,,,, , , , , , , ,cg c .
. o- aaca.
Nf4%_ TMit,e-
- N .r s.r__ _ ~ -
1 25/64 V8 1/Z 586 1 22T64 65tS88 20f553- 8( T153. 9.9 - T1 8 2A.n /.l 7 I i .
- I 25/64 98 1/2 486 ; 1 22764 49c474 19434T T(
- 42 0 69 2 2a.0 g/
[ ',,* I 25/6 4 98 t/2 586 j l 22F44 F5c499 203890* ft *.38.9 T2 8 2a.0 _#- 1 25 /64 98 t 2 # 586 1 2*2T44 FSC499 201192' it
- 41.7 66.4 ??.0 , .~ f'I ;rf
- . l I 25 64/ 98 t 2 /
586 1, 22T44 75c499 '203193 Ti
- 36.6 69.4 2A.5 4 .5 8 l
1 25/6 4 98 t/2' 446 1/2 !! I 15791 T5c499 203195 f( A 40.3 T2.9 23 0 M. 4-M
- I
,h hh,'
_ +T$EUL P .ge50 EWT. $ N
~ *
- i t e,a. tvec c un a s se cu. ( GF ce g#4= i AL. n r -- --e-- sa -- :e 40- - . . _ _ , . . _ , _
003 02d !20 : IN i 1 /g m : clu.IN sIzu t - _'(:K i l HEA1 !25 9 504$Y F CThB 18 6 : C4T4 HE41 !24 iT9 006 022 !20 i
.4 .(:1 '
i K8 1'
! CW.IN SIZE cit.IN s!2E 4
4 C499 HEAI 24 A4 004 024 21 - l
,V l
.; l .'" !
. D k' . ,
;, p3r uassagnse usutwu wouwa wus p us sa suas g;2
- f. Toot Report
- AMe d i: c f D M ' P' *
%. ca.ee u rus & WeTgG- %EP . . [' ! baoa.cos=Tnact ns. ~
wo t.r e :c .** -
. o. s.a r a- ausece.ast o.osa wo. v.:.. 3 Af*
T g ,_ Elis Ras no. 42 Faa 10/.12/17 SElW4 00LY $bOPN Li'CCRC neu.omote seu. invoect No.
! I'; M8ME$1E40 sedR48 '
TO LAW, OrPQEE3 4Nfr 28.1 3 55482 1112 br7 trI1485 14.1=t2487 TetAY THE CHENIC4L ANA.? l
- .'HOMI5Ttage PA, 15120 XfMlfifv cet 522'l70
' 140 AN0/OR Tf'1T RE.iUL f 5 PIC ,
s IN TWis prPORT ARE CCR0
- NATIONAL ANNEALINs 004 COMPANY
. P o s0X 521 * ' NATIONAL ANNEALIN( SON COMPANY j A5 CONTAINED IN JHE #F,C WASHINGTON PA i 0F lj mA5NINGTON PA 15301 # THE CopPANY.} - ^
7 s Mt SIGNATURE W . *d e W 3 V % f. I 0 . i C OAft ii/27/FF
- l. ASTP A=515=F4g GRA0E 6S PAE$3Un
- VE55EL OUALITY, DESCALE ORY NO O
! r. IL
~
STATE OF PENN.iVLV4HEA COUNTY OF ALLEC9CNY
- j. PLA1ES pH TO REFON NILL &a0NN f/A = ANALT313 '
P 139 $UBSCRIBCD THf ,' D A v o r f.AND g4977 it=03) i i a lI e n.
"*"a'at oescaevio"
)bd f,jf f $ , b.
R W 1 M ti. '#?)f:8'b i see m p" ..
' , ,,,,,,,,, use '"'g'="=cs "K$I
* (
' 8 "'" 5 '"-
L' caca' 'mys') go o-2 1 25/t 4 96 1/3 449 1/2 Tre 40.3
~
w5I ifi) :aa 1 17441 F5C499 70318.{ F .i . 6 'fe . 0 7pg . } I l 1 19 /8 4 91 584 I ofC474 198300 Tce 37.8 i
' 47.8 31.0 4 3
'B 1 19/4 4 91 586 . 3 39226 65C4F4 198303 fca 39 1 47.2 27 ' /[d af
. _ - = ._ -
Af Pf'Ollt !i
. . $. fi.9 0./) r I i A~ v.n >
, avfz@ _ 4,j . _
wy1 e- on . I '
..- . , n,; p r.e,:.- -
j ~ ! Edb. (dd '.
. rsr UL e .((igg t'r r. j i
' # - = = ' ' - w ==~ '
l - care.o wee e ==
- s si eu as en mo y sm WiF ~
e v. ce co l PSC49p b9C47s HEA1 l24 l84 004 02a !21 i j i l @ W n[
~
i i j HEA1 j71 006 0 22 l20 G!;AIN SIZE t/2 l24 Jb [ ge dH f l ! GRAIN SIZE #4 i : li.i {
! 4 ,ies i ! -.
l ! Ofh'h'3T l l l l l q
-*n-- ,___m_ g ,_
w ** " ' " "
- m. . . -
9tyUnitN5- : tate $ 510'0100rp0fatmn '.BttscatG ? W S F*'9 d 9'.**- - '" " " - 0? nume.asto otano 7.d. ')nac:=a ie M .R . m.. e _ a. e.a.04:a F sC1NG 00L* $Wbh4 1CCQPOI sWAipikseo. A2 F&a 101171J.EET.,,,,,sp7Ericsao. m.u. oui T0 LAW. 4rPOsEf, Aifn 5 AY2 M0pfsTEAe w0shts 55484 1 a 12 3',77 Lritea5 *1AS If4aa TH AT THE f MINICAL ANALT! ^
.][MgflA, una 00ario s ajL _ AN0/0a Tt.* T ntsults swet i
HONEsitA0e Pp. 1h 3 24 * * , IN THis prR0814HE CORRf l . 8 AS CONTAIREO IN p0 NECC i . hATIONAL A'WNE4 LINS 304 COMP 4NT
- NATIONAL *ANNtALING 00X $0NPANY: " .- /
P O 903 521 .- NASHIN570N PA ' Or.THTC0isPANs f- n A5H[NGiolf PA 15301 . .
, 1o.. ...._H.4sn H.-
l a . omre 1 i it t/.ZL _ DESCALE DEV N0 0 ST ATE OF PCNiisYs VAHIA -
. ASTM A-515 743 sRAGE 45 PRES 3URE VESSEL ~ 0UALITY,
! COUNTY OF Al.LECu[NY IL
, , SUS $CNIBE0 ANO th0P,st 10 AEFORt l .
. PLATES .
. . O; @d f q Thi /fd AY Or 4 h,,,}e77 F .
l HILL 5*0iN TfA . AN AL Y S I 5 *.
,dEy %
i .
- m 'ai. m Sc ai n ic a y'"a , . , , ecarp"ece 4"'*4[6/v_..
w5I a5'""a qf. as M E5'-{Ni u,ca.paj
*- ZufM.!,'. Laaam t
%'ilNt'e i8 1/2 44F - t ,1T344 68C216
~
't9aja4 TC* 4T.3 an.7 W.i /gpfi, '
I - 1 23 /4 e , 17240 66C214 196444 Tc* 43 4 79.4 21.C f 98 1/2 - 444 1 i 1. 25fs a . n.ie '
#1 - .i.t6518 75C499 203474 TC* 44 2 75.7 2a.ch/M, - V j }. l i 17/44 ,91 493 1/2 -
n i -
. q t
APPRP El -* lW M m - . - - - - AI.~9 6. ' \ 'g . . 7 I lit.CCO1 i. A. - 1 l Q
~
)#%#b 9 g.4gl 7 ,
W>- i i po 4 l . 't c
\$eM "vt i DY I ,.vnLW'.g,
.v st.ud=_s 4 c in r r r .
.a v e vi ce co kav ho. c em a s se eu en)
}
'}0AN5*[*glot.'";t..
- via j j GRAlli SIZr #3 -
l 6C2ta HEAL !27 89 005 03t es oog ord i23 ,
- [h(
p
! i
! 3 GRAIN sizt M jg ,sc=99 ucAi ja= l21 &pg- i -
i l
. l - i.g%
1 il @ D i.'; I d . ! . li . l l l }.
% l g
1 i . - s ., CHERNE CONTRACTING CORPORATION i
/-: Nonconformity R rt soew7 y 4 g. -
. 9 i.." z E T '
l
/ - A/F=~m ; e ao s~ nod 1425
' MEQUIREMENT DEVIATED ACTUAL CONDITION f ASMI E Mtm 1i1 A 4 + e he.R sm A L_s e 4 uo A _wn. nC % + wct,tx m. . , em ,D ,
l /Ls e iA ab *i A3 hs #- h e - ne th so A AiiM i D d*,si t m ' 1 h o > +TLt' m f*'E c 8- i n 4 O_rek',C'$.w4p,
*f M e o c r' -
hu -J. h e , i M Nr . l el tev- C*>t ,de. P i 8*iuor 4hef _ n . . , u c., p h els.C OoD A [ the_ h -EM A-u 41 - o m c+ , Pic d e[ nee. At 0 r A-4-7E A te r e e* t s e. he,t M e rs cap cg.* n d n Orm [*, h ~ l *.4 u Va r- OndY r mie ame d t. i mC + in a i *s A 4 , N *i + m , ' u m , , Ped Ar l'un i to E" ! e id+h tAeOAei' h M A ' s1-1 m I d e-M Tc u L e4- n t's Ac m wh *i o k cme b er g i ) t tis 14-(1 AT At t=l" KeMM it1-h,3 h cie 7. I 7 ina 'M c 4 A M A AT > ,,, Lio A Rain E"k m I11c h t1% [ _t d r u et . inens chm h,er-+',6,c%% , , Tag Placed s'$ -
$HO tb9 ea Quanty Controd j CORRECTIVE ACTION -
Defle E ' 1
-/ '
A /f T. Segnature
.)
Date ) CC Comments-
- i g ,,
Signature . Dal,e t RESOLUTION l . CONCURRENCE. l ! ^***P'** "*'' , U # Eneiasonas W ouawyContra o.= Wetc Engr. "Ni~ NDELevetill "EIe'" Remarks W Auth. Insp. Owner Dele l roepasLuneck No. l. 1 Repair Procedure Number -- -* *'
,.i . pC.a+ep.e. -'
m ,, Qual 6ty Control Date vsuow o e.- e _-_ E Q^* , Aulnorued inspecto Date cesaw Pees I es 1
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - . _ _ = _ - --. , , . -
s
. . . ... -,.,.. . .m
- .,' . ..,. o u vi u.v m o u n j
Nanconformity Report
. A'r t n e w m e fr T , . ..
6, Ae9 S' i 1 1 No. j?/#Mg l - REQUIREMENT DEvlATED ACTUAL CONDITION . i rac s+ w niue Po r~ ; La n v es. e ti r 1 u n Ati Y A a beii Ins n 2 AA-to " %
/dS o 24/J- /n - 19 R 4 .3 m n d Au Li d e#r-h p. c ed r .
i / ern 2 4 4- /o - A / Ur. t A r're mav n r . k r e m4< .~ r b f03 n 2 A8 - /n - 94I I (LT A-R t1d IPne m a 4w A>4 e d u ,n>, /n.m 2nd - in- 9A l Phkme~4um sns n 2J?A - /o -92 ' 'raORI t %4iw a v nA nA-t - ' In S*02AA - /D - 92 4ocATun at i A 1 t u o s r-4-i nn - ina_ -Y1- O r -- M Pu c'v0, /#fA K44 /2d , i ' /nsn /AA - //, - /3 A
% t A r r- xkn11 rn 4me /ns n sDnA- A - A ts-w v.- a t n es n na m r. . k l .- k
'twi,.~Ah,<. /8xnSAA- 3 -/65 e eh i cic: n4 olm leen2An-In -i 7 j -
tu ,h tVcd ,%ut ~ ~ WS o n.AA -fo ~~ 9.? ' i V ~'J M ne e/~ s/9 ! 1AAota3-y C4
-~ z. Apo tv/)
l ' et - g$~
/'
i ' tA Fc 2.cA ef~ yg
. N/~* L AP 02&f if- I co I / //
upo2 w- y I.y { ///\ // . 24po 2. cp // / i
// .{ Y 2.A Fo2 ep- V- / ff"
\ y [/ - 2JFe 1 c5'~'f' ]/~j \ 1Af&L CF '/- //7 - t 2 AFo2 O=- V- //f 2ll'o2a= y-/23 ZAFo2CG V- 13 0 - 2dFc2r4 4'- l3 9 ' 2.4Fo 2.%- 4/- / W - 2.AFO2 &.;' ~'l~/ 4'7
~24F02 D/l '/'~/s~2 YI 1Af02.M ~</~ ~2-7 1 b+fo2.dh ~f- SY -
^ ,
M :: Y =_ -- g
.D .<
i j --
, , .............w..... w w . .. w . . . . . w . ,
Nonconformity Report ArrnettintOS --".
, 3g, .
i No. = 'a # i REQUIREMENT DEVIATED ACTUAL CONDITION l / kFO 2cA ~ '/- 7/-
; l Apo tDA -Y~ 70' -
\;
/A fo 2-OF ~ '/ - /OY
/AFo z c.p c/ _ 77tj l / A f D 2..d F '/- /2.1 -
1 /A PO2.C6 '/~ /.To
//P O2 D// ~V- /$~2.
- 2 Af a ~)sg- Y~ fr
- 1.Af 6 2.c A - W 7
\l 2. afb 2.c. A- Y - 2.0 l 1AFot<A-Y~L/ L AF 0 % CA- S'-22. n ' 1 ASC 2 Cd-V 'Z.T ,
/f ) '
2Apo ) A R- y-? f l
- (/L4 2JPoz.cc-y .3P l 17 / 7-Afe 2.cc-y- Vo I \>/* .. . '?.AF02. Ce - V- 4'T Aik. > / ' 2 6 f o 2.c e - y - y y l l\/ 2 A FO 2.M ~ '/- Vf~
\
/ // .
~2Ap o2.ee;.- y- %"
/( l /&ch/A - d - 9
/ 'l /ccn elAA'-/2 - /77 l
/c t & DA --/t -/yr .
/cc o rdA -/2 - 17e
. . . . ~2 f-c 61 n - /t- '7 -
7 Mo 2.e.4 - /2.- 7 tc e. o a.<-a -u . 3 /
'1 cc /1 A d 't- V
- 2. eC /_TA4 </- P4'
4 )3AB - V~ 7.r -
2 r& /3AA //- FC z e c. 4o 4 -/t' - /r3 n . - N Cosgemme
== ._ u eseese
, Deuse of . . .
- ---.-__=:--_
~
1
~
2 -
Nonconformity Report ATTA*M M t" V *. , ggf No, e@2M
- REOutREMENT DEVIATED ACTUAL CONDITION i w or./,$A. - / 2. -/tyr 1& & O VAy+ - /2 ~ ?'ff -
- 6.5%* o~2 D - 3 o ./6
- I < YB I A B- 3 -rt
/ ey 07 // 8 -2o - 42. '
/Gv1rAB-f -/V/
/fy o_MB -/4 -r2./
1<X02.8 -Jo - /7 - i t C Y n lA B - 3 'l i 2 SXo 7RA SY . ... 2.gc07M4 2o-rg . . . -
,l/ ?
//h.5 o /JD - Tok - 2.ar G
- O ll } '
JSZ /1 DA ~ 9' ~2.o/ h/" ~ >* /SZ /7D A ~ V ~2. n2
\T
/' _ ..
A1)//Mro/M-2? %- 197 l ,
/ A1H/h.ro MA ~ 34 -2 yr
'lH / J)s v.s'o/Ac ~32 7f. 13 1. I
\
/b / MA /A Y 0 2. 5- 3 ~ ys~-
'/*/ JnN JA Y06A T ~ 74-i
/' /
- A1/l/ Alfo/AA ~/2.~ 7/
/ ML 2.R)/ 0/AA ~/2. - C3
/ M4 /AM O/AA -/2 - 4'2.
.. h A ) A 4. 3 dd ~ J ~ V'f hAOcc27Af)*3- D
/l1L 2.cc o 4AA -/2 -/62. .
h41A5ones -y -/22 M/_1Af o t c.8 - V -(/ Mt/ /cs /728 - 3 -/Yo
- R H I sX 1s'4A - 6 ~/JP
/'1 H /S l & q h -t ~ ' 2. 2 4r I,
t.; [ y- - - O 0;"%----
,bf
4 l l
. . ...... ... ......e..... - . . . . . . . . , , ..
J j ..
,, ,,,,,,,,,, , % Aweewnewr+4- is ps~sars- o,eu No. me' REQumEMENT DEvtAED
] ACRut.Concereems T7nns .DSNO 7MA-;;20"-54f wswa.nn n km,en.r .
wD wxman-2c-sa. sair 1 AwD IA>s h N S /AJ $ 8 . 1 n,a eradia, svsw su / cheila
\
M i/ \ ' 44166 McA,Ao f/h ; ' ~
/ A_/ J I/ ,
i i i. sY :
,\ /
AM ! f- / . t 1
; /\ / / '
y j -
\
N
/
W J . 1 J i
~
l 1 1 l .
)
t i I i A r /i 1
//M%/
,re. ,,,s.
< d fuld 9
/
~
wuos,.o. % - - masa: Ebenosa mme a ennessumees akadE: 44 e mmie Osmanenemmen esese
. - _ , _ . - . . . . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , . _ . _ _ . . _ . ~ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ _ _ __ .._ _ _ _
m . _s 4*' <_ _ . . _ _
i. Atra e*m Mt.2 Seaset test CuznNs CoNTRAC*f1SG CORPOHXflON
. . ... .. . s .
New hsu1worow. Is n:AxA .m o:.: f.T.*.ID.*[. " i' . May 14, 1979 1 Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. Box 190 New Washington. Indiana 47162 ATTENTION: Tom McLarty l Q.A. Construction Supervisor
!, Re: Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc.
Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 & 2 Contract Y-2739A & 8, &-2962 Cherne File #7840-708-1035 I F
Dear Tom:
' In review of owner furnished material CMTR's for ASME. Code compliance.we o have noted the following discrepancies in general: 9
- 1. Material manufacturer / supplier N-certificate number and i expiration data missing.
- 2. Applicable code 'of manufacturing not identified.
.s . no coce class or addenda. -
l
- 4. Statement relative to NCA 3800 for material manufactured i .
not shown when applicable. ~ i l Since Cherne is not aware of all facts concerned, we are requesting PSI to" review the situation to determine acceptablility of the material. In the l ' interim we are placing a hold on the effected material for installation until such time as we receive further notification from PSI. Sincerely. . d CHERN CONTRACTING CORPORATION Y .' g y _ Craig Jergens q- _. Quality Control Manager CJ:kk , CC: J. Mortall G. Shibayama R. Horine/ !) T. Francis G. Rosier 8. Braden
- 4 .- ._
- y..o n s us; t rit .*:1. l l.**.
.{' ~?
CP) fluid Originated MT'GeH/W d ' ) iii . nrri, e-G M ?/39 ()2773A [ EQUEST - i : PJ I f.'t M ,fR E Design
- 0rawirig/Speci fis.a t ion 0521.7.950.09s . .
Other Reference _.. .. ... .. Dc:cription .. ... e biL .(.ilha.h. . ASME. C.od di. E.d Wio3 Md .C9_dE Add CMd4 _ - . . Gunas e . bs.'..CE.ti l u Lde el .+.c ubE WhG d
. ..__._w verybsp ec.So c .oF .'ou.
don 3 ..._....i r m.,. _$ 2-7 ERA a.e.ws x-
.MzudaWas.. Appu . Arua.a t skad. maise tat.d _ ..___ i_
to..wu..___ M_scEs=y . *ddeude . # t.r.2_kur._ms.+a .is._. A ppuciaht.a. N _*=*<.aff=ctul... t u.J pta.as c..Ad.wsc _.._ _ _ _ .. w&TO..C_O_h.'d. .
. T.ob si.tc .*
. iGce.Ocm - u.> , t.t. b4., . . . . . . . . _ .
Mn ~Mg,hiLbl d.4 t,0.YTEAL.C,hif/W6 'I4. prabrm* N c.d ug p l. mspg.hn_, ^ d o.ouse. Facess%s.cl sns+.srus ? . 3 -
. .. . ... - * ~ ~ ~ . .. . . . . .
{ . # . . . e
/
.f.
. c., ,,. > <
. d&=.J1 . '
es ,#
.. . ..s i . .. . . . n7. . ,,2.,, 0 ., l?
)
i p . . . . . Rei,olutio i . . _ . . _ . . .. .. . Receivirs inspection. shall. be doo. in accordaner vita. AsME seenpti III. ,, . Intent *M tian with addanda,.and. cada. cases in effect. sa. of J,ha artier date [ of the.Jamteeisla..to be. inspected.. 5pecifications Y 2741 4.Y.2962 are the j =a 16.M .... -
,C ra. . specifications. for. the. furnishing and purchasing. of. materiais .._. __-
l r*r*5.syatems...- ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . t .. . .. . . e . . . . . . . l ! . . . . 1 . * ! . ... . .pj/ .. y I . _ . . . . . . ~ . t field Change Requen I.uuired i j Yl.'.
.$ . .th .....
M . C' < PSI constr t i. f r. te. I luijinur 3/n/11 *-
- ; r .%. '" .s u ., . .
.* ! .-' 8"' ,. .i e ,
- , . +a "
. .. 09 li.in 6. l t.
CC: G. Sh N y4... 1
. S .
[ ..
. . p . . ~ . . . - - - _ . . - . . . . -
, , , , , , RLQtlCST ros: 1't! (*M'*1 lis Q() Fteld origin.
tj.
- l py j 97g, ' ) tw Wh 0
.s, ,
@$ t~131 ( ) 277
[ IIQUEST W .M .
"diIfM1.IR_v.5$,
y >3 _ . . . s
- g. ; .
Design Drawing /Spes t r iutivu ~ .-
.b,, .;i ouier
- aerirence __._.. .__. __.._.... . . .
I? Description ._ WhAt. . AsME cocAt . Acid aucl A iuout.cl los
- 3i ,
,t' io oh+ for .tba , purr.hase of AL.L ccrmpansu+s supports
! o .eebs a el fram. ..T T.T.. .GLc.t w e. LL. ? W& '
l; ri bud b a __ App.uclefoW..Fuc. %se ths ?pb....._.____.. spec.%eh h). L Ounac ns.aa.nuo_.cE w.s..sapwemrxtra.zo. xrzemai __. K. p; Retg e.crudAMc n*4. ../K.9Jiet maars, ..
- t !, 'S wg. Act.wa .4.5 .sooa AS. Rossnse.1 . .... .. ....
Se .; ._.. . . . . ...... .. . . ..
.f ,:
7.: ' s : [-m] o + > ._ . .... L:. 4riginktoS.D 4 - t* 19 - Ch */,1 . lg
* ' # 1 ;': l a' <; e p.
.'.1 '. t *
. m. :...
- t. . .
i f * . . .. . l 9j Resolution ._.. .. ... . 3 p .
.g .
s_ ... . ... . . . 9,.. _.. . . . . .
.g e . .. . . . . .
i Se 6 . . .... ....... _....
,. 1 .. '
! ', t i 4 , . .. ... . . ... ... t f 4 e a., . i j ' {. i - . . I $ . fir. Fleio CMnge Reque.. ..st l!. suireit i ) U ?.
! T !iu '. .
g! . - FConstruci67i it. ale, t tiu;iev..
" ' ' 4 " . ' t J" S..ula - .,#-
t:m u. n s. .s u . - 4, T CC: G. Shilw .a.e - '
- t. * *
- g. ., . . . . ..
.\
1 - e .
2 r T..$ ,i. j g ... :. f. .v. rgr w w w w . PG. . leF 2, 1 yg-gr
. . . . . . . . 7~
e
. . . c. . . . . . . .
r li y JJ s . . . . . . . . . . . . . :, 3 g . . . . . . . . . .
. . s. ,
, a
,g . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .
2 . .a . . .i . . . . . . .
- G -
x . 4 D.
> 1 g EI S g 4 's : q cs .
1 a .
- . A A GM
.d.% _ h e -
4 I 'Y ' s.
~
2
,U m -
is g I 2 - U ' J d
, )}
w *. g y s - [as% - m - to S . q . ~ J - g 9 (. 4 i;. g . i % w r< >r Q l gu .
-5 EN
, g -
( f 4q 8'n' 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . g b g .
- = _" % u . . . . . . . . . . . N 9 h. w 4 .
s A 88 h. aug, eeng
% f -
. m..
W. . . . . . . ., .. .
=. .>
%. M . ,
i
* % M
;>.- 2. g
%$ 6 *$ - - - - - - - - - - 'J a a 5
,e ..-
g l-3 8
. . en
. ei . .
5 t
$g
,, %. . . . . . . . . . ,. . .. g la am
. g , ,,
\'
x "s j vl. i . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9
- j i
j llo j W g
! = .J $ &
j Ij i D p E. *$ .
'a-1 14 4
g g. 4 %
. u-
.I}g .:
_l l W, j gg -8
- M M M M j8 w . . . . . . . .. . . . ., .
'.' " * * .e
- 31 M .e. .o
, s .
3 e
l
--- ' ,.~
.., , y, ,
- K g g ..
- ., etin. t. g-g 4ga ,
- , f Mr.Wr9E 4 *'i S.) fS* 1 #1 l [^ l (l
- 8) j f MARBLE HILL GENERATING STATION
!. $ .nsiCT*.(df:.Y.{. n .v.<.n. w
.j UNITS I AND E .
=e..+~~-m_. cv N/A 05-02-79 f To: 5towa-t Mechanical Later No:
757 Grade Lane Louisrille. KY 40213 Reneenee, s a 1. snac. v-2 m 1 Attn Dave Hianita . WE ARE SENO!NG YOU: "Attesf ed Under esserete sever THE POLLOWING ITEMS: Seearfisocen Preein enary report O ria '
- f n o,-,u owa - . , - -
, O rr ee- - ,
m - Comes Gemenseen Reconnes W 1 7!I Ecuinenant/Matarini Tanum T4cket
\
Mon. 1117. 1126, 1127, 1129. 1130. l 1*.37, 1238. 1 , i
- l THESE ARE TR ANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
! O a- ia - n- = 0-=- Aeproved C For review & earnment i
@ 8erireur use O4= a a -
O a-v -- Oo-a ! O a - -== 0 **n ' a . a.'
- r '-n - *r <
Romerts: I n l . l soemesse oec.,~nt C osse.vea O sism.se v.i. c, _.m - .m e 4
- N/A .
oe.e: warr.n f .*
- Ondig notify al at enes if enetesures er date 64 not earreet.
,\ ..
b ma. , n.v >.--a
. ; %x ,
S T EWART M E C H AN I CAtJ". O'f p .. g* ..flgf;.j. twittPF"IS.ll*C.
$J' 1 . ,3, l A r r n e s &**.T .. :
{- 'l4 '
,- yAss l eP i r&: -.;i .. :c;
. . arcazvinc tusrtcTIow ap ont r . :. ,
I m TxntALs .'.- . ~ . , JU3 023:2 30. /0C1 ITot staIAL no. DaTx /. 4-79 PART 50. ---* DRAWMC No. ,'3./0 7 7 3r7. -
, 4043T11T 5 pe.s. To'- 6" in
- v. o. no. /de2 /29 I
- 1. time' Ordered 5tse Datetved Langth /dd #
1ansth / O '2 '2 TML 6 pe,g. Width Width f 0' Y 4 mdde 1h ic h==== .MO
- Thiehmese e flCJ '
r Diameter 2 . Diameter S O '# Visus 1 Candition Accept ,,
/* _
Reject l
- 11. Documentation Retut r.*ewn,t_s, . , ,
m . 4. .
- 1. Certified Material Test Pepwrt Tee / sea . l a) West Number or Identificat.ich .
en TDet Report LV5899 b) Neet Nu::.cr en rince(s) M5 8 4 c) Material Spec.*
- SA /d/. (,se: 8 __
- 2. Certifiesta af Coop 11 ansa Tee, ses l
i a)- Material e. Enesiving laspector _M o I { . soft: Forward to Quality Assurance Manager for review of deMtarian. Do not release .< ascert.31. L eeen m.sa Rev. 0 .
.e
. _ , _,.._._._,_-,__,_._.____,__...._.,,,.-,___.-__..__,____,,_.,_._..____.._._.,__,._____..,,,___,,,_,..._..y, . . , . . _
. a. :- -
- 4. y. . a, ,
s.
.. .... c.~". - :..
.. . ... ..;.47
.).. . . . ..,53 .e Pese 2 ed a . . ' . , '. .
mz er i n w e : = nr c ri o n e ,.u u ATTncNMrwr*f } y 2 # 2.
, .urru ar.s
. III. Marking Instruct 1. nL "Ateam will be identified as .sc.cpteil by: g((00_[jf/N *f~y/ [
c
;. Awarat ac ton kevtev a) Doctmentation Review satis factory. h1 ease to the Stores Area.
e 3 - ;
. P.
..e 6*
-_ 6/.s* rp 1Y
. 9=a 3)(f hinance nowasme a. '.
" 'r.
b) thiade q ua t s /In c a rre e t doc usw n t a t i on .
- Nold because
% Qsility Assurance haager O
e e
. le
.. S
' ?o?A r:
..*=1
. . te s
=
.:(
I._..,.
,* 4' #
e .* '.y _ p '. ~
3.g . .g .. - *
-g * --
y.
-nnnen,3.;)pg;
- t. * - ". .
$.,g p;,s yt m - ~
- p. 5 . , y . ' ,d . .
e n,,. a, _ . . _ _ _ 4> _ _ x -
;V. ...
3 .
= g 4 E '
'-4 5:-!!.l.
.8 u
5 D
- cc -
1*,T e,s a s f W. = C -s ,,, o li i g& 2 $ a !!!!
. ii s -
gt oo i
. ,%e x .
c-g n g m g ! ! ,Rt o R$$ i s
$$ $ wt*9, g
I s o o k ......iE........ ....................... s, i . e. s <
>N g g p g 3 .
......j.g.y.................
2 9
? Q. $-
a .
......\p.......u I t ! i n -
hg -
. ~
.g. . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . .
ee i
-a ,s a .
S- . 8
.. w .. .
.i.?. . . . . . .. .g ja - - - - - .- -. -.
. I Q......................-....
j n gg g . 3,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, si n , I ae N .
.El b 3 a % O~
T A l h I g l d ! I
]qb
< ~
sdt 3
, , & gg -. , n i.
E.
- n e ]. ==aase e.se ce &,..E t,,, .
_g,_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
dM Y.
., ..y,
. A)
ggA556
. h# ***
g_G h SY,f O . ,, s
,. yxs#C#'
W* , .. YO'*C Ib' M ** '
'}t -y -, . .
,.1
=** %* -
O
' p.** *"' pa, *,, vd"* 4 '
Ww C
\' ,
~ ~ j.,i=***
\
~
i 3949 .
. s ,,
# # , ,t 5*
. ge
-( ,.
w 8*s w M
~3 i>
# p *w. .- y,,sc #p ,
., i, ,
x. 7"' " '
-p" -p.- ,ss '**
*~~
9; . ? ;, ,.g,','g.
% - }. , , 4e.s* - -
\. ./ - -
.*'. p q*
\ -
. 'a-
+.y.****
. p* .,.$f0 g $.
p\.. t
}
.c.*
tg, p, . - W ,e', , e ,,,,, .,sor-. .
$ \ ' in. *,. .a w>
"q.
3
.601-p.10 4
., . ;y..
a n.C n . . Q se6*1 so .. -. *g .02* 9. .. 66- - .' -
.Ges T
,M -
** I
- QN6 gun %N ,h y
, se as** s ea ., -
- 9 w . .
. ... 4
% ./ *
. .: * . . r. i*%*
9 s .
/w..
.,....A. . . .
** .,,, s ,,
' pas
- s ***gt & Vs '
l ~. " ' . . s, p (,_ . . p w
- gp> * c.rw8.M ", p
' * * **,. s " g W ,- Y.sf*
p 93
. ' ' . . . #.' vf.3og90?s%,3 k
c t..
-to- *-
! k . d?s s * ** '# *, .-
J
, . u, .
~ .
. *enoe.entawr wtI glini NI'I'.1 IMTA Iti:l'UHT.F0lt FAlli:1CNI r.n Nt. Cf. EAR ril* LNG st;nassagggg,gg;$.g .gp,, 3
=, g . ,
-46=%.I,.n in. r NI.s . .r o.. AsuE coa. n.I ) ,
j *i , ,,,,,,,,,, La sa rte Inc. , uw Mi l l . wa moner. Okla . , 9016-01 new. 1
- n. .
.l l .;
7
. , u , r----
. .~'- ~g. . ., ., =', ,y, a t ---- m 01 33ne 1
v u s o f"Tnd i nna * * *
- r
[ , .., ;,g,, .- . ,. . _ Merble Hill W.~..;f[. ;
- e. .
i . g, 34.. ears.mt Essentia1 Ser,vice W t,y*
- d'
. *s'-
W. N p.- ,%Cy,' 7'2* : j . l' , gare.ede s,as .ases e.e , . s 3 , , , J..*,
- 1,.- p y * *
,,. .e _
, ( *
- 3. P
, r ( # s =e d by . i , 1 C ,,is.u s w , - p. . . . . .
,. ,. .3 .f,,i --
.. . . - .?.
.. .. . , . . t
! \, . . . . .v. . . . , . . . . . . .. . * . . .
;,p....Ne .
.,...h.E.- .- .
l s . . .. -
** ,' .;. g =a. ,
* *
- 3 ,,
- 4.. Th. e 6 4. d Iam. - - z6.?.! m, d -
.ed, ge6 .dten ames e.d 5 as 3, e- . j f .5.,g; e :,,
f
; . ___ 1974' 3 . '
- h' N
e.sm. SWmmei *1975
. "' - .C. . - -
.aes .e san.
_' .*7.'. M -f'7* %. t s
*. ! ~ ~. a .. ? .*.'...,.:*...r,,...r .' : ' : .. - .
- .- :...e .
g-i
;i n==.*. ns.=.8.m==.'. **. m n 4 *m sd am d .a sa,c ii s a w ni i.
e Q- w a a.nw v 4.sJ $ 4(*e'b"-?.*..">g' ,.*.
- 4*a-* '"7.q' f'2 .F g,* vgpfi+
', {\
sn. M h s.2%i.t% - h* ' * * .#=*,," - " - ' I
.f,ma.
8 7
^
-_. e^^
.'s 3, it . p f. - . *. 7 j
l . . . .* * . . . " " N .,.y.g
. 1.
. . . . n.* . . U8'.N."i*..-95.g..-= .. e.-* h -
9.c .. p . %. y .. ..y..,,,..,..,.w.gg% . .; ; . , r-
. , ' ,g.1,* ;
. v.1
- - . . . m.-
c . ; . :.:: v. .. --- .--
%.e~=. m.,- ,- . . i.
,.:+4, . :. ;. . s
\ [
.. *;M:5'i.2:.r
. . ~ J.h *. * .
.. . " . . },
- j ,. . , . , , , ,
' 550 e ,.:.c . . - .
. .. ,. ,,, ..e ,, : : ..f.v. c ' . ,, ., .: ..~.
,. 4,
- t ,,, .,,,,,,, e SA S15-0 48" 0.D. ' r . 500" N.W. m 50. .' R N.-..,.m ! ".!!***.
'.., .c .%'
; o - e - . . a .
'f;.
.- . c. ^,.. -
.n I f -
.. * . . y
- . . - - . ~ 1 i .
. . .N.
y, j t LTD Ident 9016-01-6 50'-l-3/16" Lg. spool # 3 212
~ '
r, .. .
..., ..*:.. s ..;. , . . . n k'
l { LTD Ident: 9016'-01-11 50 '-0%" Lg.* ... . .' 'Spoo1*4 5-213. ;**
- I .
.. ..? 2 .. .
. :. . . . ...- .. , . . k LTD Ident: - 9016-01-12 .50'-0-3/8".Lg. - . (~ spisol p 3I.31' t -f v .4
{n , P t 1
. . .g
., c.. o.r,
~ . . ,. ,.. .. ..
. ... . .s... .. .
L-1, , . j, .. ,- l yo
. SA 155 KC 65 Class 2 I . . Lot #2 .- .
A h
. j p.i.
~..- ,
, .. ..i .
>**m-,.,t- . . . . :. .e . . u -
. . . . * > . . j. . . L@t
*: .~
g..r.
. .. . ~.- .. -. - ..
- s. f rn .* .,..e..'..r".
* . .. . . .. . s. . . . . . *. . * . # t t -- .REr 9.0.=31075-A9 * -
. . . ..... Ty e
v.. it,vn. m.
. i. au . ,.,.
. m m e.n.a u
.e m.
w
,.........a.,,,
t
.s= m.
c
.... . . :< ,.. ' 8?:e v -
.,w .e sseraon as .a m. asnis moes.am awo enaama 4. .
': , c. 10-20-78 m,,,,,La8 erne Inc. Tub D13 , g. <
, y .
. . . . F.t.o.a=0 ... . . . . ! ' . . ..' ,, . 3 .. . ..., '
/ . 1,'
j.. c.asa. w4 Cs z,.4,.'* '7-1-80 , ,,,,,,;.. .e 4.u .s m.,e W-1791 * .... 3 { ..... 1 CERTIFICNTE OF SilOP INSPECTION . - . '-. . - 5 8.a. .s w.s ade.. . ..nd . 4..s :...a s, m. p.u a in .e s.n .w .. v.. : n e m== 1 a v ., n. e. w . .a A t.--... . ., Cams llidan .a.los ena- " . h-. s cw ,s,s 4....is s. es. sc. a.,-e l.0, .3,' A, ?,8 , ,,,, , ,, ., w ,, ,, ,,, A, .
%Si e!
'9
- d w m t.s. u r - i . . e, .a sw. ,e,s s. .-d um m. .,,u..w.,s
.u a isoss s.a '
- g j r..u is.
- l r4 p .... . . ... . . , . . . - . . , . . -
b
'.e tw es,i . w. s . n.,wi. r m. . sm m. t c - e,s. ..,s .. .n.u w u.na a. , === p4 I
'a -, . sos , - , d .. - . s .a , u.d .*.a n . u d .Jn me. n e - *
- s. , "' ~
4
.1
"'~
10 2p
*b 78 O .K.,,.,,,,.(m.2 [q '
g CC l - o _ - e,,,,,,,,, u.s .s .< S
<~re a.. 8. **~
T l'N '
3 d 8
.a u.... .a...
I
. e= " 8"*"
)l4,D'T,* ;',8 m"""... .. s
. , d, a . , i w - s.e m .s.. s. dw . na. m s.*
e _ _ n.,~n,,--.-----~---n.,--n... - - , - - , , - . . . - _ . , , - , , - - _ , _ _ _ , , _ . , , , , , . , .
- ATTACHMENT F STEWART MECHANICAL a a c-
~
twirnrnests swc y N _ f> 6aaM;niny.8)pcuesa . . idafaig an</1% t&b
-9fut Q/2etr/ $$$ricafie n
!$$mAnyandSnaitJ/uk J
3: - 757 SSADELANS Louisv LLE.KENTUCMY 4 0213 s F July 14, 1977 16.03-071477-002 Mr.fic Service Indiana Pub Plainfield, Indiana 46168 RE: Vendor Survey
Dear Frank:
On June 24, 1977 we sent to you a Vendor Quality Questionnaire which we requested of your that you fill out and return with a non-controlled copy Q.A. Manual. Under the conditions that now exist we must, unfortunately, treat P.S.I. as a vendor for all Safety Category I items provided by P.S.I. that are to be installed by Stewart Mechanical Enterprises. If our survey and approval of P.S.I.'s Quality Assurance Program is not completed by the time these Safety Category 1 items begin to arrive at the . job site, Stewart Mechanical will be placed in the embarrassing position bybeing of P.S.I.unable to accept the Itams which we are, in effect, being paid to install. I realize this places both of us in a position which, I'm sure, neither cares to be. However, under existing circumstances. Stewart Mechanical has no other course (to follow), which would allow us to comply with the requirements of the ASME Code and thus our " Certificate of Authori-zation" or " Interim Letter". Your continued attention to this problem is greatly apareciated. Respectfully, Js
.. ager -
JLB/mr1 . cc: Newberg-Marble Hill 1
.\',
r~rr . N MH .1807.7 7 0.0J .m
b iEWART M EC H AN i CAL ATTAcHarnT a E NTE R PRISE S. INC ob /{m46isy, .8/isycwk . .$G . $da1417 and' 5'chliCrthey 42%t 7&tas .%Zwarsn. k L h ad:%Assrdjeyy
,s, a,..oe me 1.ouisvii.i.x, K ENTU CMY 40213 June 2, 1978 OT- 7H-002 A '
c w ~ w V Public Service Indiana 9t Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station p k , P.O. Box 190 . CM New Washington, Indiana 47162 - Attention: Frank Hodges - RE: Loose (Non Stamped) 36" Pipe Flanges for Essential Service wa er System - Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Frank: It has come to my attention that although we have discussed verbally the receipt and installation of the material referenced above, no written record has been made of Stewarts inability to receive and install this material. Ur. der the rules of the ASME Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NA, Paragraph NCA 3820 (b), PSI must either be the Holder of a " Quality Systems certificate.(Materials)" or allow Stewart Nechanical to audit.and approve and perform periodic surveillances of your " Identification C Verification Progran". Since PSI does not possess a " Quality Systems Certificate" and will not allow SME to audit them, under the rules of the ASME Code Stewart is unable to receive or install these 4 - 36" flanges. Respectfully. - STEWART MECHANICAL ENTERPRISES, INC. i l
/f M J.L. Butt Q. A. Manager JCB/oja, cc: Newberg-Marble Hill, Chicago .
L i NMH 050678108 7
STEWART M ECH AN I CAL A774cangur s E NTE R P RISES. INC
* /ll 0MitWs}ning.$c e N/A*'n *
. etlN!y AHW Yt'H lt$rlNty l
% .s W/da/ Di&&vilan '-
%Myana'dA/ud!Aey i l
7sr samori.Anc I Louisvit.i.r, KENTUCKY 40 213 isons soi-won - July 13, 1978 07-071378-027 Public Service Indiana 1000 E. Main Street 4 4 Plainfield, Indiana.46168 d %
%d t %
Attention: Mr. Jeff Roberts 049 L-0- RE: Your Letter No. 0710780025 % % . ASME Letter of April 20, 1978 ASME File #N177-453 , Jeff: *
~~ ..
I have received and reviewed the above reference letters. Your lettsr to me addresses a non-stamped pipe flange with " Certificates of Conformance," while the letter to the ASME references only " Stamped" items with " Data Reports." While the answer to your inquiries to the ASME are correct (SME is now accept-ing from PSI, Code Stamped items with data reports) the question should be "under what conditions can an owner, not holding a " Quality Systems Certificate" or a " Certificate of Authorization,"
- 1) Procure non-code stamped material
- 2) Receipt inspect non-code stamped material with " Certificates of Conformance"
- 3) Release approved (by owner) non-stamped material with " Certificates of Conformance" to an installer (certificate Holder) for installation in a code stamped component.
I am as anxious as you to resolve this question. However, I do not believe that we have, as yet, done so. Respectfully, STEWART MECHANICAL ENTERPRISES, INC. seph L. Butt Quality Assurance Manager , JLB/oja cc: B. Hamilton
""""k B. Gutermuth bHMH 200778047 U g,:
ATTACHM cuout 7/e p U bOId'Ulf net c Nfl@ C COS*fIM 'fISu oo
. e t r * <e E .t6 on s es.c oe ric e m DIA N^"IU"=
CllBilN w an
.o st TO N. IN LS HING sew May
- 14. 1979 Indiana, Inc.
ny of lic Service Compa 47162 Pub 190 Indiana Box pervisor New Washington, Inc, Tom Met. artying0.A. Construct ATTENTION: pany of Indiana, innB,f.-29 Stat Re: Public Service ComNuclear Marble Hill 2. Contract 708 1035 fo r ASME Units 1Cherne File #7340- CMTR' sin gen d material ificat
Dear Tom:
of owner ing furnishediscrepa r / i In reviewnoted the follow facturer/supplie iden have missing. not
- 1. Material manuexpiration da code Applicable mate 2 or addenda. for
' class No code to NCA 3800 l 3 Statement n arelativewhen concerpplic 4. not show of all factsacceptab not a ware mine effected ne is ld on the notific . review the we situation to deter Since Cherare placing a ho we interim time as until such Sincerely , CORPORATION CONTRACTING CHERN L/^ 'f Y Manager Cra*ig*JergensControl N
s
- s. -
,f =" .
cwen c
. .... .... ATTACHMENT J C11 ERNE C,ONTHACTING COH1'OH.\ TION , , ,
..e oericc . o, en . e a s e . . . c ... . . .
* ****
- asca coot sea MM M EAPOI.IS. MIN NESOTA SSMO , s er a e.o . s p.. a t,e s
'M t
- March 7, 1979
. H
. Public Service of Indiana, Inc.
1000 East Main Street ' Plainfield, Indiana 46160 i Attention: Mr. Frank Hodges , _ L_ . Re: Public Service of Indiana, Inc. Marble Hill h'uclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2. Contracts Y-2739A & 8, Y-296*- Cherne File #7840-708-42
Subject:
Cherne Survey of 2/28/79 and 3/1/79 ._ .__ - Qualification for Materials Supplier
Dear Mr. Hodges:
As a result of our recent survey, PSI is qualified as a Materials Supplier and has been placed on our qualified nuclear vendor list. , Please address and respond to the finding and coment, as noted in the enclosed Survey Report and Survey Log, by March 30, 1979. Please sign and
- date the Survey Log and return it to Cherne to indicate the itera has been closed.
I Please contact me should you require further infonnation. - Sincerely, . CHERNE C0!iTRACTING CORPORATI0tl CA. 4/ dbms , Mark D. Anderson . QA Engineer cc: G. Rosier J. oberts . McLarty - .. - ... e 8
# *emand e 1 **a GF0 98 e ,p*9 .e.e,. e g$ 9%p'8 4*ed $ 's, t 85 een e *,. ,,e, , , , se e gge.4)*
~. .
j , cee ATTACHMENT X LL444-
...<.s ....
# ww 7/n /7f I
CHERNE CONTH.WTING ColwoltNrloN MamS6E webb NuCLEam Sett mOST orr*CE Son 300 ' f 6 f *"68* C a a-c. Nuw %sumarox. lxm.sx4 stmu , .'." * ^o . . $ .*.[' . . June 6. 1979 . Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. Box 190 New Washington Indiana 47162 i ATTENTION: Tom McLarty Q.A. Construction Sunervisor Re: Public Service Company of Jndiana. Inc. d
; Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 & 2. Contract Y-2739A 1 8. Y-2962 Cherne File 3 7840-703-1045
Dear Tom:
- To date PSI has been providing the cover pace of ITT Grinnell Furnished flPP-1 Data Reports, for Code Stamped Components provided under Y-2741, to Cherne for component identification and verification nurposes. In review of systt n turnover requirements associated with the Installers N-5 Data Report, we find it necessary to have the complete NPP-1 rep.mt inclurfinq any attachr<l paen .
when applicable. These pages are generally an as-built and a hill of inste r ial. * ^ Confirming my conversations of June 4.1979, with yourself and Terry '.,heets. Cherne feels it would be advantaceous for both PSI and Cherne if the orirlinal NPP-1 reports were provided. This would avoid additional copyir:a as well as ' permit Cherne to resubmit the originals as a part of our nriqinal N-5 Data Report. Please advise by June 18. 1979 as to PSI's position in this u tter. Sincerely, CllEIM CuttlMCTitm CORP 0 Hall 0N
/} ,
.s. -
Qs.a 4 $ Craig Jergens U Q.C. Manager i CJ:kdk CC: J. Mortell G. Rosier G. Shibayama l T. Francis ' l 4. Uraden l l _ , . . . . . . . ..................._...... . . . . . . . .
c-ta"E ATTACHMENT L m, ~ g
....r .... w ,g.
CIIF.11NF. CONT 14.\CT!N(i ( 't ) li l '( ) lf.\T I i i N
... - i s i, a u c i. e . . s . , a aos, o...e6 uo. 2oe 't66--o.6 ,, ..o.
New W s ti n orns. l x in.s u ici...-. , j.* *, ",' $," * * 'f, . June 6, 1979 Public Service Company of Indiana. Inc. Box 190 Nc.e Washington, Indiana 47162 ATTENTION: Tom +' -- V. A. Construction Supervisor Re: Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. Marble ll111 Nuclear Generatine,i Mation Units 1 & 2. Contract Y-2739A & G. Y-296.' Cherne File # 7840-700-1046
Dear Tom:
This letter is to request from PSI all CMTR'"/CaC' . or d.its reports for natorial or components installed by others such as Stewat t fivchanical which Cherne will be incorporatinn into Safety Related system,. f.he t'e requires these documents for verification purposes and for inclusinn in the Installers N-S Data. %nort. These documents should be identified when applicable, as to inbed or Spool number that the documents support. Please respond by June 20, 1979, as to when ths",r' dncuments will be available l and how they will be " turned over" to ,Cherno. ) Sincerely, CitERfic CCNTRACTING CORPORATION 1
;i .
*/sj. '
O.1:kdk u.: J. Wirtell , G. Rosier G. Shibayamo T. Francis V Braden R. Itorine
..-i,w............r.....1___ _ _ _ _ .__________!___... . ... .... . _ _ . .
i -
% '0730 795079 ,
,.:, een~c
~
Attachmenc M CI1 ERNE CONURCTING CORPORATION
.... . .,66 o.s... .. .
'**^***
f *',', , ] New WAsaxwoTow. !xnxAxA 4nes m , July 27, 1.979 ' Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. Qi aj p[' l r-< ,, s f, y
',1 :2 C P.O. Box 190 i Lb flew Washington, Indiana 47162 b,LE ,
' 'i ATTEtiT10it: Tom McLarty, QA Construction supervisor y
.I i Re: Public service Company of Indiana, Inc. ! .%rble Hill fluclear Generating Station l Units 1 & 2, Contract Y-2739A & B Y-2962 i Cherne File f 7840-708-1068 GdiiER FUR;115HED MATERIAL
Dear Tom:
We are experiencing great difficulty in getting DSN numbers and applicable supporting data from your organization for all items procured by Public ' Service Indiana. This includes hangers, fabricated piping and equinment. At present your 05:1 is the mechanism used by Cherne in order to release these i items for construction. A,ttached is a list of 76 component supports which our engineering departrent l 4 wants to release for installation. This list was submitted to your docurwnt group atuost one (1) month ago and as yet we have not received any of t!c , information requested. This is creating a burden on our scheduling and pro- ! duction forces. I ! Plc.nc note that seven (7) other similar requests have been transmitte1 in Pe
- renth of July which are also pending. Your attention and response is nee
- ' !
l in this matter by August 3, 1979. Sincerely, ( CHEMfiE C0 ITRACT!flG CORPORATION
- Craig ergen i QC Manager
- j. CC: J. Morte11 R. Horine F. Hodges (PSI)
- T. Francis G. Shibayama A. Strard B. Fouts
=== - . = - -
. .--====,
l _ _ . _ . , _ _ - _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _. . . - - - _ - _ _ _ . . . _ _ _. _ _ ._ =.. _-_ .. . . _ _ . _ . _ ~ . _ . . _
CHERNE CONTitACTING COTtPORKrION . MAm.b. MILb MW.LCAR .8 T E
...,orr... ...... -
m.........,. Nzw hanixorox lxn AxA 4rrea , , ' * , " ^ . .* , ' ' , ' , ' , , Document Control i Public Service Indiana, Inc. . ; Date: En9ns ! - Attn: Terry Sheeft Please supply Cherne with the following DSN's and supporting data as applicable for the items listed below. IAF01002R 2CC15015X 2C502012R 2C502027R SX 17R 13R 28R 2C508012X 18R04020R 14R 29R 1FP07003R 2C501049R 15R 30R 1FP15019X 50C 16R 31R 1FP15013X 02002C 17R 32R 1FPO4025X 3R 18R 33R 1M5010185 4R 19R 34V 1RH01005V SR 20R 35C d 15IO6005R 6R 21C 37C . 7R - 7R 22C 38R
. 24X 8R 23V 39R 39X 9R 24R 40R 74R l
. 10R 25R 41R 15118021R l 11R 26R 42C IM5010105 i 25X20002X 25X41001R .
25X42005R 2SX42008X l 18R03023R IWF01003R IWF01004R 1WF01005R IWF01006R 7R RR 9R 11R 12R 13R i Thank you, - k ' CHERNE CONT A ING CORPORATION Y' - Run rine 6 Ovality Control upervisor
. Rit:kdk Attachment
~~.=*e .=... - . . . - - - - . . . ,
. . . l
- EstNE coxT :.u nxu crnusutxtu l
Document Control . June 29, 1979 b Page Two IMSCICD 301s-30 1M501CAN)"-25 2CC05GC-16-66 1CCD4A8-12-64 M"JSXO3A-30-67 -NHOSX24A-30" 71 sMHlSXCIAs144-M10SX03A-30"-66 MH1SX54AA-3"-292 MHISXCIA-4-293 AHISC54-AA-3"-291 4;13XCIA-144 MHISXC1A-293 MHOSX24A-30 MH0CC029-16-37 ML2CCO2CB-12-37 ML2SXO7HA-20-54 MH2SXO7HA-20-56 MHISX81AB-3-30 r4 MHICC04A8:TZ:60- ML2CCO2CB-12-37 MHICC04AS- 122 W 56
- 67 RRE & c.E t $ D .
J ose iH BluG I o O* O l e e e 4 O e e l s'
- i .
i . I e D'
ATTACHMENT N PUBLIC SERVICE - July 28,1979 INDIANA S. W. Shields vw em.o.nt . Ewsne symm Mr. D. J. Mcdonald, Director of Inspections The National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors 1055 Crupper Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43229 ,
Dear Mr. Mcdonald:
In accordance with your telephone conversat. ion with Mr. R. F. Reedy of NUTECH, Public Service Indiana is comitted to the following actions as they relate to Mr. Beckwith's letter of July 10, 1979 to Mr. Crews.
- 1. PSI comits to ASME that it will N stamp all appropriate piping systems in the project.
- 2. PSI has applied to ASME for an M stamp for Class 1, 2 and 3 piping systems.
- 3. PSI has also requested an Interim Letter and is sending our ASME Quality Assurance manual to ASME under separate cover.
Hartford Steam Boiler is the Authorized Inspection Agency and they have reviewed this manual.
- 4. PSI has requested Hartford Steam Boiler to furnish full-time inspection on this project as soon as possible.
- 5. PSI management understands that the Owners' Certificate does not permit the same activities as allowed by the ASME Code for an N Certificate Holder.
- 6. PSI assures that all personnel involved with N Stamp activities will be fully trained for their ASME duties under the Code.
- 7. PSI is taking full responsibility for all ASME activities relating ;
to the applicable piping systems. S. Each of the details of the July 10 letter will be responded to in a report to be mailed to National Board by August 8,1979.
)
1000 East Main Street. Plainfield. Indiana 46168 317 . 839 .9611 1
samaca maana Mr. D. J. Mcdonald July 28,1979 The National Board of Boiler and i
- Pressure Vessel Inspectors ,
- 9. PSI intends to be fully responsive to the requirements of the .
'ASME Code, the State of Indiana, the National Board and the NRC.
In addition to the other infomation which was Telaxed to you on Friday', July 27,1979, I have the following statement to add to Item #7: , The ASME Program which will be shown to the ASME Survey Team is the same Program which has been used fmm the start of all purchasing and construc-tion activities relating .to the piping systems which will receive an ASME Code Symbol Stamp. There has been no change to the Program since the ; start of any of these activities for the piping systems. PSI has been acting on all the activities as the responsible party for the complete system and, therefore, has not been perfonning as a Material Supplier. Since all material is controlled by PSI as the responsible party, the Code does not require that PSI be designated as a Material Supplier. I hope this infonnation will be helpful to you pending our report on the July 10 letter which will be fansarded to 'you by August 8. Should there be any further infonnation you desire in the interim, please let me know.
- Very truly yours, S. W. Shields Vice President-Electric System SWS
- gm cc: R.R. Johnson, State of Indiana 4 Boiler & Pressure Vessel Board W.G. Reinmuth, U.S. NRC Victor Stallo, Jr., U.S. NRC ,
J.G. Keppler, U.S. NRC - A.W. Henry. Hartford Steam Boiler Uldis Potapovs, U.S. NRC Arlene Spadafino, ASME E.J. Hemzy, Commonwealth Edison Co. i 1
--_ _- J L ~_~ ~ T~T"T* . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . .
-,L.-_-.----.,-_,
O G 4 l t !
' i I
j' j , ; !
, l ll l
xt d 3 j Rh d {g D t 4 R 5 '
- t. 0 W
- 7 fk g4
@g$ v 1 m r!. .
8 a a s 02 s g x 1 1 7 ) 0 A
$ 4 R
s3
. 2 b $ ;
n' d p R 3R 3 2 a d 3
$ 3s J. R 2 313 M A
l;3t g z e g g e e 3g '
- : = ) e , - ; r- s
-4 m $ g - s a r t , m w s e r hk r hk(QS h k $ h hEd k 4 bk 5h $ $ *$ j i
> Wv aa 82q - u e n-
- 25 2 a t = W a!se ai e-itz 4 c44 A 0 ast
- b
'i4% ) m% x m . 3
. , e ) xm ~ k. -
g k fa cia a s Q
- b ea a s 3 3s e s am a Fo I A -8 9-293 K /Iz.I
!,I!!! !,!lll l!
Il'!!!! I I! !! I!!I' ' l!!! '
;l;. i i-
'!i: l l ,; ji' . .
,_. ll!!l! '
!!! lll iil'i'l:
ll i J !l il I i 'li l ll ,
' I
!! ! ! ii !
l I!I I I I .'l
;,I!!
,i : i
;ii!
t i i ll!
~d n' i% d '
ll dl I
*k It bAfAld5 Cl ' ' '
l il! l i dL. 3.!'"' g a$,$, s M 4. 8 4 AN - N 8 xM .
,u
)say R A ,
r' w h Q5b 4 4 k(a$ Q Id 3 D P! - W3hA , 4 . h
' l a s! e ~ ~ u e ~ g iw ia{ y3.3 k, I-d 9qs o gs d. 4 $, 4s d Qg e4e
.s s t k 4, 9 aM e( q s s s - - s - -; si ~ a l3 , I ..
'l o
@L lm i
i:n Iw W' Jk 3s n d D ee Hi
- m %
m-w e w!@'
.n gJ <jM d r nl oj ]#
tu l? R lhch N 4 G 9dgQ nAR Wh wMldW- P G;
$ 2 W4V + e d i e d
sh 4 c44SE2 4 :d-2MWW:'sJWIdW 25 33644a3dGB : ti k I Ii'! 1 s
"d
) au w
xm . d., , n h&mw x k o ! ! !$ 10 - d Va w w8! 3> > c J l'S 4M$3 'jieti l % 4' k g I "wj[ i G i s 4 y E D T t si t t T tu % % 4
%w %mANm
, a 45 ,4 ss .$ 4 3 m 4' Pc
- N w10 o' r L Fo t A -s t- 21's K isa
- ,/ ' o -
E. Y Je /-// D MABBL.E 18851 NUClEAB DIVISION Pt.BSONNEL June 2, 1983 1 Please Notify Operator of Plione Changes (Dial 121) or 1700)
* (Denotes Change) # (le.Jicates Trailer Number) FO (Field Of fice)
W (Warekouse) AB (Ausiliary Building) SB (Service Building) MB (Materials Building) EXT. # 6 NAME EXT, # 6 NAME EXP. # 6 NAME KIT. # 6 MAHli 1479 - Barnes, Boss #20 l))8 - Bradford, Shonda fl3 1696 - Cervo, Wayne f66 ' 1559 - Abplanalp, Carry #16 l))5 - Chandler, Carry fl2 1975 - Abrams, Willie HB Jil8 - Barnett, Jennings B. SB 1230 - Brau h, Jerry SB 2215 - Brannon, Joe #105 1830 - ChapmaE, James #62 4454 - AJair, l.ynnette #87 1836 - Barnett, Bon #70 2048 - Chastain, Walser #28 2057 - AJamesak, Lis #87 1346 - Bartelt, Phil fil 1111 - Bratt. Een fil 1345 - Barton, Dave #7) 1925 - Brautigan, Frank #6) 228) - Chaves, Gabriel #201 1487 - AJams, Cheryl F0 1649 - Adams, Cindy #12 *l744 - Baugh, Angelia f51 1731 - Braretton, Bill #47 1552 - ChilJs, Bubin #43 i 2179 - Brewer, John #2 1687
- Clark, Dave #201
*2247 - Adame, Collen #98 1121 - Beach,14alle SB 1294 - Beat t y, Paul B, #68 149) - Brevar Steve F0 1886 - Clegg, Sharon #55 1123 - AJa.no, Jim SB 1350 - Clemons, Joyce #7) el567 - Adams, Julia F0 1464 - Beatty, Paula #20 1894 - Brierley, Kevin F0 1459 - AJams, Tony #7) 1851 - Beatty, Bas.lind #70 1278 - Bright, Gloria 855 5771 - Clifford, Don f49 1240 - Beckhain, Charles FO 206) - Bright, Marvin #77 1536 - Coats, Van #67 el915 - AJkins,lloward #2 I412 - BeJamah, Julm #26 1416 - Beines, Kimberly S. SB *))ll - Col,b, Buc ell $8 1948 - AJter, Danny MB 3209 - Bell, Steven SB 1119 - Brittain, Mike #82 1660 - Cochran, Debby to 230) - Aimone, Cene SR 1549 - Albright, Doug #19 1499 - Benham, Jeanie SB 3106 - Brockbank, EJ C. SB 1218 - Coleman, Michael SB 82198 - Benne6t, Marie 8806 22% - Brooks Sheri fl04 1656 - Comatnck, Cayle #65 I489 - Aleaander, Jim #8 1537 - Allan, George #67 *1758 - Berg, Albert #51 1125 - Brown, Bob FO 1640 - Cont.oy, Scot t fu 1220 - Conder, liesdie B. SB el287 - Allen, Joy #8) *2141 - Berg, Len fl07 1431 - Brown, Della SB 1781 - Allen Mary #58 1941 - Berlin, Vince MB 1694 - Brown, Dennia #66 1801 - Condon, William #24 3108 - Berne, Jim #118 1962 - Bro no, Michael MB 2118 - Condrey, Nurma fB4
*2210 - Allen. Itichard #91 1939 - Brown, Patricia MB 2050 - Conover, Ann #75 1817 - Allen Time #27 1984 - Berry, Ray MA
*))2) - Allgeler, Thomas E. 55 1416 - Beyer, Sallie #45 1490 - Brown, Bictard #71 1826 - Conrad. Don #60 2224 - Amatucc i, Cabe # 71 al671 - Beynon, Al' ara F0 128) - Bruther, Cennie ISO 3288 - Cook, Ted SB 3102 - Beyerle, Paul T. fil7 1894 - Bruther, Jmses F0 3409 - Coon, tial M. SB 1521 - Amick, Bon #55 1597 - Coones, Charles #24 3209 - Amos, Thomas J. SB 1870 - Bhatti, Bashid #62 1901 - Bryant. Bill f69 1639 - Bryson, Bobby FO 2025 - Coonts, Doug MB I)% - Ander son, Alisa #15 1501 - Bickel, Itick f57 1210 - Cooper, Casolyn FO 1686 - Anderson, Bruce f66 1684 - BieJson, Jaca #74 1812 - Buchanan, Steve #62 3101 - BueJe, Cliff fil) 3225 - Cooper, l. aura SB
*l685 - Anderson, Jenny #66 1467 - Bils. Bobert #22 2011 - AnJerson, Thussas flut 2220 - Binser, Robert fil 146) - Burket, Greg #20 1894 - Cosby Toni FO l)29 - Bishop. Brad f)$ 1629 - Burns, Allan FO 2086 - Costello, John #81 1535 - Anthony, Chuck #15 1194 - Apersis, Nick #67 1594 - Bishop. Dennis f) l)91 - Byrd, Kevin #74 164) - Cotter, Pat FO 1905 - A r leuc k l e , Janet #69 3807 - Bishop, Vince #118 1986 - Byrer, Krista F0 1481 - Couc h, Dan FO lin) - Black, Charles Illi 189) - Crabtree, Mary F0 f 1654 - As c e, Andsca "AnJi" #65 2128 - Crain, Susan #1 1845 - CaJonic, Craig #10 1851 - Ascher, Don #62 1990 - Black. Tracy MB 1719 - Art hur, Edward #18 3209 - Blacklock, Sue SB 1900 - Cain, Norman #69 171) - Cramer, Roger fil i
8842 - Blackwell, Dave f)6 2004 - Caldwell, Cary MB 1240 - Cr ane, Char les SB 1 1894 - Ashbrouk, Mask FO 1844 - Cravens, Jerry #70
*)l01 - Ashton, iee SB 1772 - Blair, Bruce f 49 2027 - Campbell, Debra #14 20% - Blanda, Walter #88 1892 - Campbell, Ken #61 1894 - Cravia, Maureen FO 1540 - Aubrey, JoAnn # 34 1108 - Crews. LloyJ #4 4790 - Austin, Arlene M8 ell 8) - Blanke, John F0 3494 - Campbell, Wolfgang 5. SB 19 8 6 - Canada, ihmna F0 1164 - Crisp, SanJy #15 1924 - Austin, Nobert #61 )ll2 - Bluos, Jon #1l7 1842 - Crossman, Jerry #70 1519 - Boas, Martha FO 862) - Carchedi, Frank #61 1404 - BolJery, Karen M. SB 2005 - Carey, Paul MB 22 2 7 - Cs ot hes s , Nancy #69
, h O 1994 - Backus, ret e # 7 5 1521 - Bailey l Timothy SB 3416 - Boldery, Let ic ia B. SB 1497 - Carlisle, Edgar SB 1451 - Cull, " Johnnie" #89 Ill4 - Cullen, Jim $8
- % 1485 - Bair, I.oren SB 1701 - Bonnett, Ernest fl01 1688 - Ca r i nc k , Te r r y # 66 1819 - Borches t , John #58 1877 - Casmichael, Eart #6) 165) - Cumasus, Pat Fu N 1556 - Bakht iari Sam #51
' N) I 8704 - Ball, Jim F0 1327 - Ballowe, Jim #40 1446 - Bo rc he r t , Raymond #68 2054 - Bosders, Debbie #28 1207 - Carroll, Steve FO
*l894 - Carvin, Manteen FO 1426 - Cunningham, Centgia #61 186) - Cursy. HowasJ #19 2096 - Banet, Time #85 2102 - Bot t , Jack SB 1580 - Casey, Jesse #64 2158 - Curry, 'tola fu 81581 - Bowe, LeAnn #57 2248 - Cassidy, Ken #107 2175 - Caa jka, Bicha:J #62
. 1641 - Barbera, Joe #6) 1788 - Bower, Charles #18 1664 - Castagno, Paul F0 1821 - Cauch, Cindy SB j'
g 1286 - Basker, Robert #74 1101 - B.s i k t e. y, Dan fili 8 8 894 - Bowe r , E l i s abet h FO 2006 - Castil Joan MB l 1137 - Centennial, Mask #12 2092 - liahney, E.sy #E5 j 4 3210 - Basimis e, Ken SB 1822 - Bowling, John SB 8690 - D.siley, Sandy #74 h 1881 - Barnes, Budges #62 #2199 - BoyJ, Stanley flub 1894 - Center, William FO 1 l
- ~ m- _ _ _ . ,
O - EXT. # 6 NAME EXT. # 6 NAME EXT. f 6 NAME
, EXT. # 6 NAMK 3230 - stopper, John sa 2160 - Kaag, Betty SS MRC 1506 - Legendre Felis NR 1441 - McCarthy, Carol #68
*3316 - Kaltenbacher, John SB 1216 - Legg, Andy #67 2257 - McCart y Doug #104 3464 - Hoppes, Daphanie A. SE 2158 - Hortenberry, Ruth Ann FD l7ts - Karlson, Karl fl8 1395 - i.eichner, Jim f50 1134 - McCauley, Mike its 1993 - Kaye, Debbie HB 1410 - Leininger, Charles A. Ss 1230 - McCelland, Bill SR 3230 - Horton, Bob C. SB 5257 - Keith, Barbara #67 3230 - Lanfert. Dennis SB 3121 - McClure, John 58 2177 - Horton, Ron #12 3121 - Keith, Michael SS 8481 - Leonard, John FO *3212 - McClurg, Walby SB 1841 - Hostetler, Carolyn f70
*1522 - tiostet ter, Ronda FO 3213 - Kelley, Mash 58 3230 - Lewis, Daryl SB 1525 - McCoy, Rose #55 1669 - Kelly, Barbara FO 3209 - i.ewis, Juanita SB 3328 - McCracken, Doug Sa 2211 - llouchine Bill #105 1894 - Lewis, Robert FO 2136 - McCracken, Kathy F0 1636 - Hough, Cheri FO 3261 - Kelly, llenry " Buck" SS 3103 - Kelly, Mike fil7 2092 - Lewis, Shelia #B4 a3302 - McDaniel, James R. SS 1939 - ttouser Ruth MB 2288 - McDaniel, Linda #98 2162 - tioward, Wen Mai #88 1878 - Keep, setty F0 1307 - Lewle, Terry #9 1644 - Howell, Steve F0 1552 - Kendall, Catherine #43 1360 - Lichlyter, Michael #73 1708 - McDaniel, Mary F0 1866 - llowk, Van #73 2066 - Kennedy, Alan #77 1787 - Lindley, Laura f57 *1230 - McDaniel, Tim SB I433 - llabbard, Bruce #45 1907 - Kennedy, Robert #63 1425 - Linn, Mick #42 2166 - McElhaney, Lawrence #4 7 1659 - Hubeny, llenry #27 *3328 - Kennedy, Terry SB 2095 - Linville, Mary #85 3102 - McEntyre, Glenn A. fil7 1807 - Kent Ales fil8 2126 - Lipsey, Billie Jean SB B799 - McEwen, Cindy #13 3103 - fluf f, Phil A. fil7 1865 - Huf f man, Jamea $39 *3337 - Kernen, Jef f SB 1578 - Little, Debora;e F0 1884 - McClothlin, Carol f 55 1351 - Kerwin, Mike fl2 1567 - Lock, Carolyn F0 1336 - McGlothlin, Tim fl0 1613 - Hughel, Dan FO 2135 - McCrath, Leonard #74 1445 - tiushes, Ron #61 1470 - Kidwell, Connie F0 3416 - I.ohrig, Linda SB 1358 - Hultman, Mike #15 1497 - Kidwell, David #54 1342 - Long, Dencil #13 3759 - McKinney, Barbara #41 15 75 - th,me, Jo Ly nn # 20 1624 - Kilgore, Bill #32 1848 - Long, Mancy fic *32 30 - McKinney, Clarence SB 205) - Blunt Dewey #74 1997 - Kinsey, Judy MB 1687 - Louden, Steve #201 *l389 - McLetran, Dennis F0 1222 - Kindler, Rod FO 1224 - Love, Kathy F0 1553 - McMahon, Vince #2 1230 - Hurry, Becky F0 2149 - McMania, Neva f69 3456 - Kindoll, Dana SB 3451 - Lowry, Bob SB 2159 - Ikerd, Rochelle flot 1552 - King, setty #43 1447 - Lowry, Joann #69 1894 - McMillen, Carl FO 1773 - King, setty Jo #25 *3301 - Losier, severly SB 1542 - Meece, David #34 3490 - Imel, Mitch Sa 2457 - Ison, Lisa F0 1277 - King, scenda #55 2115 - Lucas, Sonya fB4 3470 - Mef ford Dee J. SB 1369 - King, Randy f47 2168 - Lueken, Jim f5 3411 - Mefford, Judie St 2006 - King Tesh MB 2028 - Lukins, Mute MB 3460 - Mellen, Larry SB j 1894 - Jackson, Carl FO 32 30 - Kleehamer, Scot t SB 2198 - Lundell, Peter f101 1801 - Me l t on, J ame s "Ron" #41 3413 - Jackson, Charlotte A. SS 1622 - Mensing, Mark f32 1505 - Jackson, Dean Me 1242 - Kleier, Charles FO 3478 - Luther, Paul SB 1887 - Jackson, Cinny 855 1314 - Knick, Joe #74 2039 - Lynch, Debbie #67 1400 - Merket, Charles #8 2242 - Jackson, Joyce #808 1295 - Knight, Bob #68 1815 - Lytte Shari f62 1855 - Messick, Barbara 868 1592 - Jackson, Russell #36 2002 - Koons, Karen " Sue" MB 1317 - Lyttle, Jackie #2 3259 - Meyer, Charles F. SB 1650 - James, JoNell F0 1209 - Kramer Dennis FO 8617 - Meyer, Steve FO 2198 - Janicki, John #106 1482 - Kruer, Dennis A. FO 2108 - Machaum, Mary f 83 1922 - Miller, David #63 1280 - Jeffries, Caye #55 *3475 - Kuhns,lloward SB 1387 - Macy, Mente F0 1838 - Miller Dean F. 870 1963 - Johnson, Brooks MS *l458 - Kunts, Killie #87 *2266 - Magee, Dan #36 3107 - Miller, Frank E. fll8 1524 - Johnson, Cliff fl03 2289 - Kunsa, Tom #98 1492 - Maguire, Dan #54
- 3496 - Miller, Greg ISB 2099 - Johnson, East #83 1894 - Kutter, Joseph F0 2024 - Mahoney, Jim Ma 1637 - Miller, Jeff f63 2179 - Mahoney, Wave #2 1246 - Miller, Jinny #5
*3303 - Johnson, Jerry SS 1203 - Johnson, Norma F0 1522 - Lacelleid, Jan FO 2226 - Maier, Steve #27 1689 - Miller, Larry #66 1847 - Johnson, Phil f70 1693 - Lafever Doyle #66 2129 - Mangan, Patrick #1 2004 - Miller, W. E. MS 1761 - Johnson, Van #41 2061 - Lamson, Rita 876 1427 - Mansker, Joe f 61 3325 - Miller, Wanda S. SB 1894 - Johnston, Jane FO 4214 - Lansferman, Meil F0 1453 - Marcous, Gary #26 1875 - Miller, Wynn Dee fl2 1724 - Johnston, Jeanet te #48 1674 - Langham, Lawrence FO 1749 - Marietta, James #24 1103 - Milner, Lance fili 2045 - Jollif fe, David f 35 3116 - Lanta, Bob fil8 3203 - Marsh, Lana J. SB 2116 - Mincey, secky f 84 1840 - Jones, Bill f70 al442 - Largent, John FO 1527 - Marsh, Steve #25 2085 - Minks, Dennes #81 3208 - Jones, Bob Sa 12 88 - LaRose, Rob #63 *2090 - Marshall, George #82 1881 Minnich, Randy f 63 1663 - Jones, Dale FO 1916 - Laudeshaugh, Vicki FO 2239 - Marshall, Luther" Johnnie"fl08 3484 - Minton, Ron 55 8673 - Launi, Michael F0 1988 - Marshall, Son MS 1858 - Mitchell, Marcia #35 222 k- Jones, Dick fit 1230 - Martin, Earl SB 2041 - Mitchell, Tim fl5 2060 - Jones, Don #76 332 t - Lawrence, Steve SB 1569 - Mitchum, Eulalie #46 1411 - Jones, Jim 89 1422 - Layden. Dave #42 2090 - Martin, Hank #82 1102 - Jones, Martin fil7 1628 - Leach, Elisabeth #32 3230 - Matthew, Daniel SB 17DO - Moberly, Jackie FO 2068 - May, Debra #87 1934 - Moffat, William MB
*1511 - Jones, Mary #57 3315 - Leach, C. Jef f Sa 1882 - Jones, Pat #55 2094 - Leatherbury, Sue #85 2004 - May, John MB 1596 - Mohip, Bas #24 1868 - Jones, Roger T. 8 39 17 36 - Lectrone, Don #38 3108 - May, Keiti, #118 1488 - Monroe, Bill F0 1879 - Jordan, sillie #63 2022 - Lee, James "Ron" MB I488 - Mayes Ted #40 1894 - Monroe, Dannye F0 1797 - Joslin, Reggie #57 293-4235 1472 - Lee, Linda fl9 5365 - McAlister, Donna #31 *1894 - Monroe, Dean F0 3466 - Le f =4n, l.J. " Jake" Sa 1208 - McCammon, Julie #66 1820 - Montgomery Dallas #58
a EIT. # & MAME EXT. I & MAME EXT. # & NAME EXT. # & NAME l , , I
*2199 - Stanley, Boyd (Nova) 1714 - Varney, Al #48 1610 - Worley, Lonnie FO WAREN0USES 1798 - Stanley, SanJra f57 3102 - Vincent, David fili 2030 - Worsham, Frank #86
' 18 34 - St. Amand, Jef f #62 3333 - Vire, Mike fl8 *l436 - Wyat t, Denise #45 1980 - P-1 1918 - Starnes Harry MB 3883 - Vise, John P. fili 1759 - Wynn, Melissa f41 20l4 - r-2 1964 - Starr, Fran HB *2157 - Voge, Kathryn FC 2198 - Wynn, Cheryl flot 2015 - r-3 3240 - Steele, Leigh SB 1260 - von Dielingen, Dennis E. SB 2087 - r-4 1698 - Steele, Naitman #18 3406 - Vandra, Calvin A. SB 1647 - Teaser Lonnie FO 2018 - P-4 1273 - Steen-Larsen, Brian FO 3414 - Vocis, Suellen 1. SB 2198 - Ynsk, Marsha #108 1254 & 1321 - Warehouse H 1835 - Stein, Gary #70 1766 - Young, Det #45 1651 - Stethen, Abby FO 2255 - WaJa, Louis 8804 1634 - Towns, Janos FO ON SITE TkLEcotlERS I404 - Stivers, Jerry #23 1334 - Wages, Bill fil 1304 - Youns, Kent I37 1468 - StoJJart, Charles #82 1469 - Walbom, Lorens #40 2004 - Youngs, Mark MB 1753 - Civil Engineering 2071 - Stoner, Linda #86 4210 - Walker, Deborah F0 2190 - Contract Management 1236 - Strahle, Ted f55 1725 - Walker, Gary # 34
- 1662 - Zehme, Charles F0 1575 - Personnel 3321 - Street, Jim SB 3321 - Wallace, Mark SS 1646 - Zoll, Fred FO 1786 - Purchssing 1478 - Strickland, James FO 2097 - Wallace, Sue #84 1819 - Zollman, Cary #58 2307 - Sargent & Lundy 32 36 - Strong Dan SB 3318 - Walter, Robert $8 1322 - Zuyner, John FO 3429 - Service Building 3209 - Stucker, Harley L. SB *2241 - Walton, Doug #808 8233 & 1700 - Suitchboard
*2091 - Stuffle, Larry #82 3106 - Warden, Eric fill DEPARTMFDRS/SECTION EITEN$loNS 1829 - U.S. Testing 1926 - Sturdivant Margaret #28 1432 - Warner, Creg #38 1393 - Suchko, Allen #67 1528 - Warner, James #25 *3337 - Cat Lab
*l231 - Suddeth, Ronald FO (AIDE) 1655 - Warner, Meredith f65 1643 - Const ruc t ion 1888 - Sullivan Lavonda f43 1616 - Warren, Steve F0 1558 - Construction Library Control 1666 - Suanger, Kenneth F0 1705 - Watson, Mae F0 Station i 1699 - Suift, Jim #27 3113 - Watson, Dave fil7 8226. 1239, 1280, 2042 - Computer Room 2117 - Watson, Sherri #84 1724 & 8754 - Contractor NCR Statusing '
3307 - Taft. Bob Sa e3459 - Weber, Jim SB 1284 - Electric rever Service
*1238 - Tague, Diane F0 1908 - Wegeng, Robert #6S 1285 Emergency & Maintenance
*2142 - Tameris, Neidi St 1299 - Wehner, Debra f 57 1310 - Engineering Library Contrul 3314 - Taskey, Don L. SB 1574 - Wehner, Dorcas " June" #69 Station 8
*1749 - Tate, Steve #24 1602 - Weldon, Loretta #40 1467 - Mallroom 34 34 - Taylor, sett $8 1521 - Wells, Denise f44 2178, 1444 6 3445 - Makeup Dem.
3104 - Taylor, Jerry fill 1712 - Wells, Martin fl8 Room Engineering Lab. 1968 - Taylor, Judi MS 1237 - Wenning, Marv #55 *3335 - M4TE 1936 - Tebbe, Dennis MB *lF58 - Wessel, Tim #24 33 34 - Tebbenhamp, Tim #16 1810 - Whalen, Doug #36 1298 - Microuave Building 1260 - Thackar, Jane f33 1582 - Whelan, Desmond # 64 3465 - Operations Duty Surervisor
*1854 - Thomas, John #61 1310 - White, Carol FO 1461 - Personnel 1526 - Thompson, Dick #25 82272 - White, Jim fil 83336 - Procedure Room
*3230 - Thompson, Glenn SS
- 3 304 - Wh i t e , Larry C. SB 1250 - Project Administration 1581 - Thompson, Tommy #28 1456 - Whitman, M. Michael f 88 8451 - Project Controls 1752 - Thorp, James #24 1314 - Whitney, Cordon f!8 1660 - Project Engineering 3321 - Threlket Bill SB 1240 - Wicks, George 55 1902 - Tichenor, John #69 1281 - Wilkey, Don #34 1602 - Project Test 2228 - Tilley, Ernie #71 2258 - Willisms, David fl04 1968 & 2006 - PSI pcm Statusing 1747 - Togni, Carl #24 1399 - Williams, Frank #23 1329 - Public Relations 3240 - Tomlin, Bruce Sa *2049 - Williaea, L. T. #75 1728 - Purchasing 1894 - Truesdell, Fred FO *1314 - Willingham, Robbi SB 1570 - Q4 Records Vault 1269 - Trues, Daren #86 1467 - Willa, May $22 1241 - Quality Assurance 1609 - Turner Bev F0 14 71 - Wilson, David #40 2079 - Records Management 88581 - Tweedy, Bruce #21 1814 - Wilson, Marjorie #62 1906 & 2011 - Relay Building
*l 386 - Tyger, Ke rby F0 1323 - Wilson, Patricia #44 3333 & 3314 - Safety & Fire 1824 - Tyler, Willine #60 1742 - Wise, Charley #13 5257 & 1437 - Security 1675 - Wiseman, Gerald F0 1988 & 1705 - Site Document Control 1746 - Uhlar, mandy f 32 1874 - Wiser, Steven to 1402 - Supply Room 1668 - Ulrich, John FO 2110 - Wagsland, Ward 58 1799 - Training 1349 - Wolischlag, Chris #12 8522 & 1677 - Word Processing 2006 - VanarsJale, Robin MB 3808 - Wann, Brian E. fil8 1994 - Vandeuster, Richard #73 1594 - Woody, Steve #3 1558 - Vannet er, Julie #4 3 1888 - Works, Linda #43
e N m M M
- 4 O = 4 4 mm b 4 3 e O N e a me M e m e mM m NN e SEe hMN e
e e 4 m M mO d v M medet e N 3 M M S Me O mc =b d S
- O Ze= M e e m g e PO O + C w ee4m m em dbem ese deec=> b h WO me=CMOm e 4 . h heemmAM eb e** C M = 4 e d M4 e G3 M ME N b bE N h 9 Sb e Em b bemeMOdd eh me D m hb Se me de e he me p e week eh he w e
( e o e 8 mE a be A h S hw ejee=47w C 3M e S S w he4 he S $ M eSmM hs w e 33 S*T e de J oeme=4 EM S g h OdSe eet 0 g hh we=S = em owem eOQ S w g ek e= h awg h h= Aw wD Q to e S C * "i 4 S S D hw e 4 + = = = 4 e > at 0 == A =* ts =wA W = SA eh9 e he de e e 3 .= e as m% .a2 3 e * =4 = m 8 = M S e egd e9hMQTb C Se *Qsw4Q* *h= w h Sw
- b u e4 eM k 2 > w e
- wh o *Q
* *ee *3 *%Q9w 3wog ka 4 h eOQ *= Cem S4 9 4= 4 0 34 w e
- Qe ed * == *e b =h e eeM e e * *
- el eea eS * *E =*O 4 4 Q a M .J Z E = E4 M 6= 3 "9
- e a9 S S S *e8m
- W.
w w h h a ==
=e "3 T * * *
=m h h h **
M *S e0 0N9 S e e b
*e = a h=mS S
*S= 8 8
=w
- ewb
- h e S . = = = . * * * * * = . .h
- emm e hog= S 4 aee es
*k A 4
- b g
E 4 4 mwe e4 ee eeb >=g 3 3ww >=m 3 ow wme m 4 SJm ew h 3 emm eeSw wm wA >4 t= e S em eeJAAAAAAAAAAAN E CT mew = =w w w eh w w w w w = m gse oSwg sam ewm Sm W w Sm S S S C=M . E E AA O O 3 = == eb > g e4 e e e+= = = 0 3 3 3 wea E 5 S* oa S mes e*=====-=-===*= E$gh1yS h gg
. S w , O O , & b b = b & ne as eegea ea w w ww w ee eeeAAAAAAAAAAAAA***** 9 E E E S G E G S S d M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M "M" "M "M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M EMMMMMMMMMMMM MM e 8 t i l I t 8 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 8 l e I eI l 0 0 0 9 8 9 4 6 9 0 0 0 t t t I l i l I e 6 8 1 e I l l t I I i 0 9 9 t i l I
- meWOmeNmmmeddN meOmemcemmemeddeNNNNdmNdeeON CN=Tmeh ymN OeNeececeNmeON4mde ymedemMM NmCNNSNmd-CemOm4N k e@ eN emdNemOwmeMComeNeece ddM Ce*Ow ceed eN eedNNNomee4N 4Ndee=4CN N f@e=N =NfNmdewom*=NemN OO4 W mmmemMNemmm me=NNNmme=NNmmmMMNmMN=Nm-Ammmmmmmmmmmm e mm mmm mmmMNm e e e ee e Q E a
= = E e O N e 8 O M b N e e M e a m m e em e 4 Dem m em e= e o e m e 40 ho me m a en . e eNe N Ommee 3 M 4 0 mer e adh hm a M e W mowet ee CbM MO Om m A 6N me M b N M eM Mm ge ONA ewe % N $ eM b4 E 4 e b d %N w1Me 9e@ S 0% SE d he ebed e h 4 OOm ENA A 2 eh e N SW S e m eS % $ ** e e C= e O ENm hweem eed emh49be ew 4 w h m =4 3 3= h m de O S & D N e w=m De eb aw hw Omm = S e g = A he S S = SA 3m e 4.=S e t M 4 w w 0 wTe b C w 4 4W h gm es2 Mb meem wa 0 4=> =4 4 0 m esew *0 ehe g SS A SM e0 hew e S
*e b
gMQs A hm e *A e 4 M 3 e*wJ e M = E em M M =m * * *
- E=
emQEm4 3 w S
=t M - eea h= S=
3 eW ts w q 61es t= A h he a e as u o
- 0 0 Mkm b=
* *M e A ee pe Sm == to A=b De 4 e es
*E b ee=W
* *
- h
= at- M * **
- SQ w aW to e O h f4 m
- O 3> Q A e === = e se =9
* * == to e me *
=t e
- E ,e hea ee ea eae
= e e OES S S S *
= . . as0 S e .=J *eb 3 we e ed 4
.S
- Q EW e .o I I e e=*b he b e w
E
.=e h s e
= *S h===
S Sw w .oooo5S e G W e b w hS S S S eaww o ww et od e h = em .w w h o
.h
-E 3 *- m e a*=
emm 3 e9 0 J w O e,S-eS S .. . ew eeOA h .h- h h==== S s *- w _y eS -oA em
=wm e=4 e
< =v l ,e e - .e m. e eaw e se = em e
=1m eeJAAAA3.gja3 e m. .E h G === S h h 3 E w beww wm
==2*===
A eAAA33AAAAAAA AAA t=== -=== e ee S em C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 mee 3 3 3 hew 33 0 3 3 3 3 3 va mm $ 3 h h e 4 4 eeee e4 w w ww w w w w ww u w ww w w 444 d maammmmmmmmmmmmmemammmmmmmmmmmmmma MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
% 0 0 4 9 8 I I I I I I I i l B $ 4 8 8 8 I I t i l l j i I l 0 t i l e I f 0 1 0 e i e t I a 4 9 8 9 0 e i l a i l 0 I
. momem=Nmoweemedd4mmeemeNNe=NemdeN N NameN Neeemw=OdemedO40ee=3 k NM emeN emw4MemcemN edN N =N eecNONd@eOO mM*Meeecm eN ed*m N aceNede=N N A NNamdMdhee4WMeeNN4eCNededWNOMO4d4 m4PNee44M = N4=M*meNNd4dN NO W memNewmmmmmmmmmmmmmmNmmmmmmmMmNmmm NmmNmmm mm NmmNmmmmmmmmmMMN 4 e e e e e e
e e 3 N e
= 8 e e a e e M M N Q O O 4 5
- a me e
- M e e C en *Ne 4e 4 == a e o ea se g be e O Je M 4N N eM em b N MMM M ew O O *
- M
=
N b e 1m h e s= e NN e%J
% Se9 et h 1 e A
w m em m Me N em eg e O 4O ON e Se b 4 = e 3 e M 4 em b em
= m3Se d
h Ndeeme e WAme w= > G See 3 O EOm =7 b OE W eNe= Q 4 M e em h m hp emm W4 e= w M C 4w e9AmO Mme 4 he% G h 8 w hwd 2 hm h M we G w heJe a eh g w 4 Omw hee e=ewESe M Egema= = S e em S h h e== CAO w e w h 4 w> 3
- h E O h S9Q $
4 4 oSm e 4m km m um a 9Mk* hw S e ahe==h=9 > S= ew w
** wWJMJ S e
D e MwAS k b e0Je w ab w m ee g S 4 w S eMJS=eh1Q v2 SWm7= 9
= 8 *9 9
- b o +se e et 9 e *
- to aS D e 48 4 e5e4 4 eQ ee
- 84 84 le e = 84 wwQ 4 E ~8 9 e 3 4 *E * *D e e es S S SGM be ee og 4 ew *GM QE= w a M h e =
- C b w 4 = *w e e 4 S
- mm e qeO = Go es bbwE o b
- ng e eg e a w e o es . .e=bA . =e E e 3 e aC IG Ens b M == ** *492 W C O=9 *h U S e n S e * * * * * * = = G7h = a h h e see a h ehw Am t 62 h e =w==
X 4 e esO de khm h O hbmmmm O e sw e7 G g seeewem u w +m m e ed w w eeh wmmmme mew w 3 S emmm w www wd E S WemA oge ed .S=m eSA=w= e e o g g awTTNN7 0 * * * = w *AdS eOw O$ S e= E e1== = = w w ww w w W==*= ed S 4 3=== S O w w g g*= ** *** $ $ $ e 3 > h h ew eee e e * ** 3 hh w e eese eeeemeWAAAAA**=mm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m h b w e 4 eeee eee e e eeeeewee eeese d bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb EmmmmmmmmmmmmmmMMammmmmm e e 4 1 4 0 1 8 8 4 0 t i 8 0 9 l e t i I I e a i 4 0 0 8 9 I I t 0 $ 8 e i e 9 9 I I e I I e e 1 1 t t i e I I e I t
. WeeeeOdme=OedmeedmNdON OeNNeeOOeee d N#POmedeemOmdh e=434N eede k m ecem w4NN e=emedeeceAN Om ee*NmeNemd e M OONm=em *4== Omen ece*M eem M moeddNN*We=N N Nm4N eeMN=qwdeem4MMeN d NemmememmemesN4mme@ Neeme y mmmmmmmmmmMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm m mmmNmmmmmmmmmmmm-mmNmm m e e e e e e e O
b 3 A C w O w m N e m em e b d N m 4 E 3 04 em 4 = e48 NepMS e e WA Nd 43 O M Ce e e NON O Om tem b 4 9
%g em be m4mm m emmN bE E 4 e S e g e4e edbem Em b Omm b e
=AeEmhwCM a S Nem=Omem*%==
eew*eh% OA em e4 N 4 h
# he w h aw he m 1 e C b
e mee em 09 a et 9 3 DM e4e wewe M& h b m emet e A S 3 moe =wmm h +e 174 h Me 44b= k M e e= cemm= w e e me=% C = =cyey 3 0 Amm 3 eeQ gm S Se b e e CN 407m i h eew eB S e*E Od e3 Mg 2 wA OmA 3 4G hJ be e eQ aJe b 4 S.w eJS hem m -m > 4=ew wh S = ee . h
=> d =he e Ao ,4 S. *k gwlw
.e em 3
3
== he
.m m w e =
. e . b. ,e ,O ,eE= S:
4 8 ees= 4 J
.h h S .Ae b
C em b = e 3 he abJSA-4 i he
,e Z >= S *
, "9 $
. m e le . =9 Q 13 A l M hs .EQoq .w .eeeg * . o e eE D e =, E S
- he he
- e e m 'm b
**A
.e 3 o 2 M 4 E a ,= . .m E 0 9 Q
[ .b aw e eweh -m em m4 A s mA g h sq e .w e
- e
> S *ee 4
- Oe seww eEe e S .hhm. e ge SA . S w .mmm= =e ehJ AW3=
- C *A. h *e C e
- S W e e" 0 0 0m9 9SM
- e
=
E W===== b w O e= e=A e4 ee * *O w 3 =S C= C E
- 3 e47 8 * *A m ve ee**04= 0 S= ew 4
3 w = b b w ee1 8 m = m = hhw gwam w w e ee Sw== bh w w w = S e akm e== $3 3 AAAAAA h hww ww w w C $em e e% b g h 3 e e eS eO G w S
=eeemAT= meet ht w =w w 7 w >e -
9-a= 4 A h 7 m b = w w h ee m 9 4 4 9 4 4 4 9 4 9 d EZE]EEEEEEEEEEEEE O Q 1 E Q S S 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 h h eee e e e e e e * = = = -= == = 0 0 EXEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE QQCOOOOOOGO bbbbbbbbbb ( e I e 1 8 a t i 4 I I e 9 I I t t t i a e I t t t t t I e l 9 t I t I e I t i i t I n s t t t I t t 0 e f 9 1 1 I l . ONem4NedeemN dOmem mN ewemeNeedmO<e Nd <edO4mNNme < emmed~<OO4 ( > m M NeNmmemOcemN( m e N emeON OeO4 CN eme ** @ @deedeN em e em m m eWeN N N M em=ed=4meneareNew eCOom dedm emNNeeN NN memeN Na+Nm e mmNOOmedh e \ g mMNmmmmmmmmmmmmme mM NNM mmmmmmNmmmNm mmmmmmmmNmNm NmMNNammm= e e e e
?
..---n . - ~ - _ - - . - n_- ..- - -- ~
o a EIT. # 6 IIAfGL EXT. f 6 MAfgi l . EXT. # 6 NAME EIT.'f 6 NAME
- 3230 - Nor tr, John SB 2160 - Eaag, Betty St NRC 8506 - Legendre, Felie Mt 1648 - McCarthy, Carol #61
! 2257 - McCarty, Doug #104 ] M64 - hppes, Daphanie A. 58 *3316 - Kaltenbacher, Jol.n SB 8216 - Legg, Andy f67 i 2158 - Nortenberry, Butte Ann FO lil8 - Earlson, Eart #18 1395 - Leichner, Jim f50 33M - McCauley, Mike #18 1993 - Mayo, Debbie MS M10 - Leininger, Charles A. 58 1230 - Mccelland, sill $a ( 3230 - Norton, Bob C. 55 4 28 77 - Norton, Ron #12 1287 - Keith, Barbara f67 1230 - i.enfert, Dennie SR 3328 - McClure, John 58 1485 - Leonard, John FO 83282 - McClurs. Walby SS l j 1848 - Hostetter, Carolyn #70 3121 - Keith, Michael SS i
*l522 - Mastetter, sonda FO 1243 - Kelley, Mark SB 3230 - Lewis, Daryl SB 1525 - McCoy, Rose #55 2218 - Nouchine, Bill #105 IM9 - Nelly, Barbara FO 3209 - Lewis, Juanita SB 3328 - McCracken, Doug Se ;
46M - leough, Cheri F0 1261 - Eelly, Henry " Suck" SS IGM - Lewis, Robert F0 25M - McCracken, Kathy F0 1939 - Nouser, Ruth MS 3403 - Kelly, Mike fili 2092 - Lewis, Shelia #84 83302 - McDaniel, James R. SB 2162 - h ward, Wen Mai 088 1878 - Eemp, Betty FO 1307 - Lewis, Terry #9 2288 - McDaniel, Linda #98 I644 - Nowell, Steve FO 1552 - Eendall, Catherine #43 IMO - Lichlyter, Michael #73 1708 - McDaniel, Mary F0 J IBM - Isowk, Van #73 20 M - Rene.eJy, Alan #77 1787 - Lindley, Laura #57 *1230 - McDaniel, Tim Se i 1425 - Linn, Mick f42 28M - McElhaney, Lawrence #47 j 1433 - Hubbard, Bruce #45 1907 - Kennedy, Robert #63 43321 - Kennedy, Terry SB 2095 - Linville, Mary #85 3102 - McEntyre, Clenn A. fili 1659 - Hubeny, Henry #27 3803 - Nuff, Phil A. #187 3107 - Eent, Ales fils 2826 - Lipsey, Billie Jean Sa 1799 - McEuen, Cindy #33
- 1865 - Nuffman, James #39 83337 - Eernen, Jef f SS 1578 - Little, Deborah F0 1884 - McClothlin, Carol #55 1643 - Hughet. Dan F0 .1351 - Eerwin, Mike #12 IMF - Lock, Carolyn FO 8336 - McGlothlin, Tim #10 1
1445 - Ilughes Rose f 61 1470 - Kidwell, Connie FO MI6 - Lehrig Linda SS 2135 - McCrath, Leonard #74 J 1358 - Multman, Mike $15 1497 - Kidwell, David #54 IM2 - Long Dencil #13 1759 - McKinney, Barbara $41 , j *)230 - McKinney, Clarence 55 1575 - hae, Jo Ly.us #20 1624 - Eilgore, stil #32 1848 - Long, Nancy f70 ! 2053 - 10unt, Dewey #74 1997 - Kinsey, Judy Mt 1687 - Louden Steve #201 *l388 - McLerran, Dennie FO l J 1222 - Kindler, Rod FO 1224 - Love, Esthy F0 1553 - McMahon, Vince f2 l 1230 - Murry, Becky F0 2149 - McManie, seve #69 j MI6 - Eindoll. Dana Se M5I - Lowry, Bob 88 ' 2159 - Ikerd, Rochelle #401 1552 - King, setty 843 1647 - Lowry, JoAnn f69 1894 - McMillen, Cast r0 [ 1773 - King, Betty Jo f25 *1301 - Losier, severly SB 1542 - Meece, David f M F d M90 - lael, Mitch SB 1277 - King, Brenda 855 2115 - Lucas, Sonya #84 3470 - Mefford, Dee J. 58 ) } 2157 - leon, Lisa F0 IM9 - King, Randy #47 2168 - Lesehen, Jim #5 3411 - Mef ford, Judie SS l 2006 - King Teah Me 2021 - Leskins, hee MB M60 - Mellen, Larry SB 18% - Jackson, Carl F0 l
! Ml3 - Jackson, Charlotte A. SS 3230 - Eleehamer, Scott SS 2198 - Lundell, Peter flot 1801 - Melton, James " mon" #41 '
1505 - Jackson, Dean MB 1242 - Kleier, Charles F0 M78 - Luther, Paul St I622 - Meneing, Mark #32 1887 - Jackson, Cinny f 55 1314 - Emick, Joe #74 2039 - Lynch, Debbie #67 1400 - Merket, Charles #8 2242 - Jackson, Joyce #808 1295 - Enight Bob #64- ISIS - Lytte, Shart #62 1855 - Messick, Sarbara #68 l-1592 - Jackson, Russell f M 2002 - Koons Earen " Sue" MB 1317 - Lyttle, Jackie #2 1259 - Meyer, Charles F. SB i 1209 - Kramer, Dennis FO 8617 - Meyer, Steve F0 1650 - James, Jossell F0 r 2198 - Janicki, John #106 1482 - Kruer, Dennis A. FO 2988 - Mackaum, Mary #83 1922 - Miller, David f63 1280 - Jeffries, Care #55 *M75 - Einline, Howard $8 1387 - Macy, Menta F0 1838 - Miller, Dean F. f70 j 1963 - Johnson, Brooke MS 88458 - Runts, Killie $87 *22M - Magee, Den #M 3107 - Miller, Frank E. fil8 1524 - Johnson, Cliff 8103 2219 - Kunae, Tom 098 1492 - Magmire, Dan f54 *MM - Miller, Cres #SS l 2099 - Johnson, Eart #83 18% - Eutter, Joseph FO 2024 - Mahoney, Jim MS 1637 - Miller, Jeff #63 l
*3303 - Johnson, Jerry Sa 2179 - Mahoney, Wawa #2 1246 - Miller, Jimmy #5 j
1203 - Johnson, Morma F0 1522 - Lacefield, Jan FO 2226 - Maler Steve #27 1689 - Miller, Larry f M 8847 - Johnson, Phil #70 1693 - Laf ever, Doyle #M 2129 - Mangen, Patrick ft 2004 - Miller, W. E. 985 [ 1761 - Johnson, Van #48 2061 - Lamson, Sita # 76 1427 - Maneker, Joe #61 3325 - Miller, Wanda S. 58 t 18% - Johnston, Jane FO 1214 - Lansferman, Neil F0 1453 - Marcous, Gary #26 1875 - Miller, Wynn Dee fl2 ; 1724 - Johnston, Jeanette f48 1674 - Langham, l.swrence F0 1749 - Marietta, James f24 3103 - Milner, Lance #117 2045 - Jolliffe, David f35 3116 - Lante, Bob fil8 3203 - h reb, Lana J. SS 2116 - Mincey, Becky #84 > 1840 - Jones, sill f70 *l442 - Largent, John F0 1527 - Marek, Steve #25 2085 - Minke, Dennis #81 I 1218 - LaRose, Rob #63 *2090 - Marel,all, George #82 1888 - Minnich, mandy #63 a 3204 - Jones, Bob SS IM3 - Jones Dale F0 19I6 - Lauderbaugh, Vicki F0 2239 - Marshall, Luther" Johnnie"fl0S 3484 - Minton, mon SS 222b Jones, Dick fil 1673 - Launi, Michael F0 1988 - Marshall, Ron MS 8858 - Mitcl. ell, Marcia #35 2060 - Jones, Don f76 3321 - Lawrence, Steve SS 3230 - Martin, Earl 58, 2041 - Mitchell, Tim #15 1411 - Jones, Jim #9 1422 - Layden. Dave #42 2090 - Martin, Hank #82 IM9 - Mitchum, Eulalie fM 1802 - Jones, Martin fil7 1628 - Leach, Elisabetin #32 3230 - Matthew, Daniel S8 1700 - Eberly, Jackie FO ! 2068 - May, Debra #C7 19M - Nf f et, William Me
*l511 - Jones, Mary f57 3315 - Leach, C. Jeff SS ISM - hhip, Bas #24 1882 - Jones, Pat f55 20% - Leatherbury, Sue #85 2004 - May, John Ms I 7 M - Lec k rone , Don # 31 3108 - May, Keith f!!8 1418 - Monroe, Bill F0 j 1868 - Jones, Roger T. #39 1894 - Monroe, Dannye FO 1879 - Jordan, sillie #63 2022 - lae, James " Bon" M I488 - Mayes, Ted f40 RM5 - McAlister, Donna #31 81894 - Monroe, Dean FO 1797 - Joslin, Reggie #57 293-4235 1472 - 14e, Linda fi9
- 34 % - leiman, l.J. " Jake" Sn 1208 - McCa== mon, Julie f M 1820 - hatsomery, Dallas #58 r
l i
MARSLE KILI. $1TE CaHtiRACTMS AND SUPPC%T PEISONNEl, AIDE PERSONNEL PULLMAN SHEET METAL - 293-3361 2110 - Ranha, Jim 2124 - Sojks, Andrew 2195 - Slow. Terry til5 & 1578 - Amat ucci, Joan
- 2203 - Kelly, George 2332 - Sorensen, Don 2493 - Fur long, Ant hony 1578 - Cravens, Bob 2129 - Ehayyata Mike 215) - Sprout, Een 2194 - Jackson, Joe 1185 - Cravens, R. Jr. 2316 - Ehostavani, Amit 2204 - Reppert, Dave 2194 - Johnson, Joy 1315 - Domica Earlene 2188 - tiperehtoin LenniJ 23)1 - Robinson, Mark 2196 - Johnson, Richard 1620 - HammanJ. Charlie 2308 - Enies, Carol
- 2352 - Roop Henry 2196 - Eennedy EJwin 1534 - neat h, Silas 2153 - Eutinski, Ken
- 2207 - Roschay, L.
2L92 - Leedy, Walter 1115 & 1578 - Neatettler, Sandy 215) - Lacuesta, Rudy 2153 - Rufo, Romeo 2194 - Pierce, Cloris 1589 - Nichole Cecil
- 2311 - Lanta,aDave 2 318 - Runes, Tony 2194 - Powers, Ral ph 1578 - Shimon, Don
- 2145 - Legaspi, Jaime
- 215) - Saczynski, Jerry ,
2192 - SuJJuth, Doug L514 & 1115 - Sininsee, Carol 2102 - Leland Debbie
- 2207 - Seelos Emiliano 2195 - Willisme Karin 2202 - Lemon, T.R. 2206 - Scarbeugh, Charles
- 2 352 - Licardo, Josefino
- 2 322 - Schall, Lewis SECtfTEL POWER CORPORATIOld @ GENT & LinenY 2153 - Lo, Carlo 230) - Schwab, George 293-1344/3345
- 2)L7 - Abbott, Greg 2153 - Londres, Manuel 255) - Segal, Etyen Switchboard
- 2355 - Abbott, Sherry 2322 - Lopat Don 2153 - Shielde, Janet 2)00 - Lorens, Cheryl
- 220) - Shrimall, Dennie PSI Estensions 1980 - 198) 2202 - AJoe, Mark 2153 - Ateemuddin, M. 231) - Luciano, Carlo 2203 - Sioson, E.
BURNS & ROE CONSTRUCTION CROUP 2153 - Alegado, Nehmee
- 2453 - Luna, Jaime 2308 - Smith, Carol 2180 - Ellyson, John f29 2153 - Alperto, Marcello 2112 - Mac k ow, J ac k
- 2322 - Smitta, Sandra 2181 - Creer, R. W. (Dick) #29
- 2 3 8 3 - Alvan, Abdul 255) - Magante, Ricardo
- 2324 - Sojka, Andrew 2153 - Aquino, Janus 2L53 - Majumder, Anjan 2331 - Strouse, Mark CHERNE CONTRACTING - 293-4401
- 23I8 - Athuluru. DemoJara 2127 - Marcinkowski, Myron 2153 - Swin, Theo
- 2315 - Bayoneto, Ted 2207 - Mateo, Paul 2319 - Syed, Nasir
- 2151 - Bedna rc zyk, Je r ry 2307 - Means, Jeff
- 2307 - Thiele, Kim CHICAGO BRIDGE AND IRON - 293-4315 2206 - Bell, Rick 2312 - Mercedes, Vincent 2315 - TibuJan, Vic COMMONWEALTil-LORD JW - 293-4484 255) - Sister, Keith 2151 - Merriman, Jim 2202 - Tomunitsu, Hirostel 2338 - Bornhorst, William
- 2128 - Miller, Cheryl
- 2306 - Truwbridge, Cheryl EcupYNE - 293-445) 2107 - Bovard, Robin 2108 - Miller, Fatty 2151 - Turrublartes, David 2153 - suchmann, Jim 2}}4 - Miller, Phil
- 2324 - Veeranna, Ravi CEO - CDNSTRUCTinM TESTINC - 293-4211
- 2205 - Butler, CinJy
- 2113 - Miser. Een
- 215) - vergara, Audi lagram, Darrell 2153 - But s, Ray 2153 - Noured Walid
- 2119 - Vincent, Martin Williams, Mike
- 2153 - Catalang, Servillano 2339 - Muehlfeld, Tim 2300 - Webb, Susan 2153 - Chu, Talk
- 2123 - Mulline Sam 2206 - Welsh, Jim 2312 - Chwaliss, Rich 2108 - Murray, ram 2202 - Williams, Donnell CILnERT/ COMMONWEALTH 2203 - Clark, Randy
- 23l5 - Nasr. Muhamed 2307 - Williams, Jenny 4392 - Boone, Art #57 2315 - Con ui Ralph 245) - Nicholas, Debbie 2202 - Williams, Joel 4547 - Bowers, Dave #40 2317 - Caajkowski, Richard 2106 - odisho, Phil 2338 - Wilson, Kevin 2231 - la t k i, J ohn # 88 2327 - Davis, Gary
- 2104 - Opalacs, Peter
- 2205 - Zamojski, John
- 2316 - Ziegler, Chrie 2070 - Rupp Dave #88
- 235) - Detloff, Cerry 23)4 - Overly, Brian
- 2204 - Engstrom, Frank
- 2352 - Facta, Silver 2153 - Ziolo. Tadeusz J.L. MANTA - 293-4845
- 255) - Escoto, Thomas 2453 - radalina, Rally 285) - Espino, Paul 2151 - rahati, Bayani SARCENT ELECTNIC - 293-3354 ,
NEW8ERC - 293-))81
- 21L2 - Falger, Jan 215) - Panfil, Jerry 2028 - Brunning, Chris 220) - CarJoer, Jeff 2337 - Papenfuse, John MISoo - 293-4428
- 2205 - Catchalican, Celso
- 2351 - Parrish, Steve ATONE & WERSTER 2201 - Certsen, Mike 2320 - Faskvalich, Steve 3450 - Cutler, Richard NOVA POWER Trailer fl9
- 2126 - Caetake, Rick
- 2325 - Fatel, Maren 1216 - Creen, Ken 2184 - Bogner , Jay 2105 - Coier, Allen
- 215) - Patel, Yashvont 1210 - Ilancock, Dave
- 2182 - Henry, Een
- 2111 - Cuerrero, Fred 2118 - renacerrada, Sam 3109 - Houst on, Bill
- 1850 - Lane, Eirby
- 2207 - Gueverra, C. 2203 - Penta, Bhima 3tli - Howe, Bob 2081 - Limerich, Phil 2315 - Hammond, Ray 245) - Peterson, George 1210 - Miller, George L272 - Morris, Bill 2207 - Ilarowat a, Jack
- 2151 - Firiano, Frank 3110 - Ryan, Dana 2470 - Prater, Terry 2 5 5 ) - taa t c he r , Denni s 2314 - Poethke, Steve 1449 - Smith, Donna 20d1 - Sh,aler, Mike 220) - nenderson Tom
- 220) - Fotnow, Tim
- 218) - Singer, sill
- 2207 - 14ibler, R. 2153 - Frado, Richard U . S . TE ST I NG - 289-1000
- 2067 - Van Eren. Bernie
- 2152 - Hussian, Syed
- 2322 - Radice, Dan 2075 - Armand, Mark a
- 218) - Willis, Caye
- 2445 - Janicki, Rich
- 2315 - Ravago, Ronie 1822 - Calibration Lab.
215) - Javier, EJ
- 2310 - RebolleJo, R.Jy 1829 - Dodge, Mary [
2 301 - Renwic k, Brian e
- 23L5 - Eahn, Yusuf 1825 - Fitzgerald, Del 2074 - Cross, RoJney
t H n d ge r e s nm i e yno ga u rg dib o ea ndh h S en ul c g e r a R E I ina g M g l n&B ut Lit n uii W P nt ei E c nst e S s e O E - C ananc - T M E l r ohei A 8 R i t s c gv0 . M S 1 23442 E v nr r r r 0 S. E - - - - - 3 T i oe uae7
& S PPFPP1 CCPPSS8U U E # O - - - - - & T - - - - - - & -
I H.
. F 045784 S 30567 939 T R 8l l l 1 5 59780232 X A 900002 N 71 57 3428 E W 122 221 O 1 21 1 231 1 mg on oi l l B s o o u l r r r rt o t ea r o g t
n n t t t . s S o uS en m i n o g M C p ec o e v n i C U mR cnc D r o s g n I y oCi a . e p i g u ne i r t n i s S r CM vny pb t t 6 O N a r er ua gu a n a t di e s e O8511 F#440 F1 0 0 F 8 5 E T b r - ret a oS nr eL k ag ins d y r t sr sl e i t S s n l enl F t cei nmu& yc m u c o ffl 8 O7 B #O X i 2 t ib mioe R o uaeB t o r ie#5F3 sO F E L 4 c rai M n l t
# M f ar g ieknea 4 eF y 0 aeML i i u uD onr n Ci V ua yt r yid P nassl na# s k l rn H nn oo 2 r u - r e B oiti R mng t Mt s a s naeuem d nri s y oF nir nh ost mna et r r adC o ah 0 8 ii ,tnF o& g n 5 e s d on eI l gs s al f ct o r L L r eaeM h e T t t 10 o yi8 4 n enl eACE TS endAM eaeioRSSSR gW o el e
,D eh aDJK C r ,J C cc 1 C cc r m4i voe r PRi r
,m ,M n , E b uun2 i neno3 g ainut t t t soys n
.MC ,F ar y a r . , ,s S ar ro1 - r eeoo n ut nd ccc c- cact d - - - - yi -
W eht , , e ,gggg e . ae / Lt ti t gnir6E oaoeeee rr s cjjj e i h eir o1 7 5 pi 7 l n A l at nn gk nnnn nll u ll n S sst ,4 cri t l E j6l cMl ac3M3 0 pa7 r r r a nn a r uuuu y T l nna95 eegal 4 mT cer oooo o0b r I ooyyy eooooo leoou F aoot 37l mnt a4 o& per r r r r0 uuA ue0147 ur6
& WWWWW YYYYYY ZRZZ F I
I CCCS28 1 EEESM43R oM iMOPPPPP P2rFQQR211 8 ST1
# - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - ,& - - - ,
- - - - - - - - - & - - - - - 6&&& - - &
8 289808 96378292 5 01 T X
. 00691 11 359 60471 716 496M44 61763 0 00 2692 6442 6681 A
P E 718 345 345 64450 22861 27223 78 67 41 3 3 851%5560 966 2443246 062 27 47 0351 092 693752 0932947 5 E 1 2l8 2 1211 1 2 1 111 D 31 1 1 11 1 1 1 2 3 13131 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 21 31 1 1 1 1
- 8 *
- 8 5
9
. 6 E # 8 8
s # 2 iB8 5 "e 4 6 al 8 4 035S B 24 64 1
#8 7 nS5 6 n0 B l 7 n 00 B f 4 8 u4 # S el 1 27 #f O 1 i 5 e . . 4F 8 S8i 5 O 78 67 J#485 af5 ##fi 0 3 F S s1 f 1 ODAI 4 # i n 0l 1 2hF 1# #5" 4l5 6 h $ b 4 eal 0 i# 3 8d8 fF
.nn 0l 1 izaf M54 8
# tff#
li3# t i O1 F#i t st a#f#43d0 2f nFl Cio
. c n Mi n T.bo2 dk #iifdF r c l dh r
.#8 3 4 4il
# vfF yevl
. nnie #f nr k eoyr eegcgeev r sd e rB r aat env#
erS er c esir o i smlf y Md ref g va ar .B2d,#ijr oiyanrCK er ea ea a r gl l sl rb r aeb uie mr eeve bb r rit a mus o r . or nDFL vrt l evW .nvd ga en l D enh naa il oeaMS oorr a et aah moeoonrMi oer mrMCeaoo my a aarCe A k hti C m uiLDC ,RDEcJMSMDSiRDDL ,DM
,TDD
,,CJL aia
, ,C eD ,
,smmng s ahR
,aaDMP a h
t
,St l
,ai t rSl i.
,t yn
,i oal MJK e .S .
l
- o. s , , ,ee , , . , , , ,,,,J
,mr r c cr nnrrrnnnn
,gr r n , ,nl nn g ,
,,,ny a e ,yaaan . nnn
, , ,C n a ,ac n
ihB E ee , , D r o,i e ,s o e e a a e o e e e e e o o o r n e e o s s i e e a e e e m n s eiiii s o o o .mrl a , y s A N nceee r nr sgnnc di eebkkl l t t d nnnr sssee nndl l nsl l t t t t t kkl l l l l s l slseeesf d gll l l l ll r r r r rt t t b ghhl ll ns aeiiiiicl l l l l ll s s ndk s gl nor aiiioooo aa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa eee eeee eehhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiii ooooo
& VVWVVVVV WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW T
. 42337 064 1 0315601 5M905178162856537989421 5
61 2291403251 01 1 5097 021 351 817 05 92$657 278 020246M08899471 2785323 43 2223 0344837 681 485941 67 1 2477 4325409848 1 M1098 58 X E 7 1 3 1 5 244 13332333 8 214273 0321 45667 21 5 11323231111 1 32M1 8 1 1! 1 11 1 1 1 11 23133121 211 1 1 1 1 1 1 2I 3 1 1
)
8 E 3 7 2 D # O # I S F 2 B A3
) 8 O S t (4 M a72 8 n $ F e f 0 8 5s2 1
9 o F 0 d3 r4 v56 1 a 3 . 2 r 0 F i l B6l 8 na# o##S #i 2 s6 s L8 a7 F a tS l Sf3 2 s# 1 6 N M B r Gf e85 e # g6 J h SS Bi M 31 # 4Sfi 5 6 2 # 2 i h ( af S nB0F l#5 m y r#d nt O 4SfS im#6 ny2 f4 d8 # 0 3 O b c e rf yB a 1 yr #B aB eya l oe7 Fi .2 y M #k na#l mn 2 e#O F m a
#F oii dJ erHh m ,# yr aa SJSl rM navn2 dLf sTe c em l h e# er F e y n RRl y nJ r gl n b rhdd r r enan# aei t rii niil osi oi cF n c yi u oa a n ii e yb eC nem,naa ,l oL e S nenet rd n .al uDGT esJ nt u evubl dh , ,J BS ,H aeasrAJ ,i Tid aHLtnDl R nA ,K m aH ovee u n pJ o
, , , a ,
m r r r .r er rl no er
,D teBJJ e aBl aBB ei aJ l e ,
,Dma r,J L bi ,E
, ,dn ,F rLWraaC, ,t .J a . ,a , n ,i J oD nnnJl r C ,le D ,KW R , at r yyas ,,L ns r ,e ,l
. rev ,h ar B e ,S , , ,ooo eo , , d ae E ee me ,ee- , er arl t k geli ot ve , .i y rr .knass ss ,k ny ,nd . r y , , ,h s ut l l A nrl l nnh eJ eb ecnkf dk uigt .er e .roooeek appppt e e ii s sed rr rc r M
nn t uek el l l bb c mmmmr ehl nl eeneee ai ad e e. A M r r eeei t vJ naeiocf rhJl nf a a . aaeeeeeioor r r r uuucJl ai f gmst y yybb aooooor cl gmuur e gl aa aaaaaaeehhhhhhhii oor r uuyy l r kl nnsu aaa t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t uuuuu
& SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT UU WVV 68 648 T.
I 98M8408351 99 1 7 B992 1 649,28644023 t 73 481M18M91638869 5 067 27 092 93 422093 2866 869 7 03 8249M06%M652304601 28 217 04991 64 41 4 48 32437 48 991 2852573 927 2826538 8520244960882 46 7 6 095 095 21 I 1 1 3i11 1 8 1 21313121 1l 1 1 1 33 21l311 131 I 1 31 131 21 31 1 1 l l 1 11 21 1
* * * * * * *
- a
- e ,
d
.-.-. - - _ _ _ __. -. - ..n .
s NARSLE MILL SITE CUNTRACTORS AND SUPPORT PERSONNEL U.S. TESTRIIC (Coat inuedh i. IMF - Custaf son, Becky 1828 - Norton, Becky 1823 - Sellarde, Cindy 1859 - Tenelle Raum (UST) ISOP - U.S. Testing Lab. , WESTRIIGNupSE ELECTRIC - 293-3M2 1545 - Armand, Judy 1545 - seleu, siII 1783 - Clask, Cary 1585 - Devine, Jim 1370 - Johnson, Beverly 1585 - Lee, David 1370 - Markham, Chuck 1370 - Williams, Don 1370 - York. Bill WisCD - 3321
- 3321 - Alford, Harry
- 3321 - Calounts, George
- 3321 - Street. Tom
- 3321 - Welford, East * .
l t y l t t t v k l
1
= s+ -
2 :
=-
1 AUX Cc, g v 2f % I g l io. i Y an.
'I
/ 8RASS' ALLEY f h _
115 , [I 34 ' l ; N Y ' i ad #
/
e EE .e. 2-5 * ' ll m , - - - _
... E l.9.
N * *j b
)"$
1 2 3 8g
$8l
*3' t-"
n0 ng mo m g[g N*= 0 0.L!.1J
- t ;n PARK Ul l55 ll 59 l p_ ..
(
*i Af, h} '
V g l 98 i th to I
#q h
1 5* j
- a @ , -E .3uSE.
) ,,
18FMLS I M 81 ;. "" g ! rest -
" V ---*
E !i l! ~ lal =
=lal=F e l =l = !l
'~~
s . U u=h I re ! - [ .' A $ - wr e cuses
,i MO Y** - .F .
[
. [
5 O/ .
)
e
= f/ .'[ ' .'
/ [ta.. GI! 4,
,. = .
.g
,!!u., L** -- 2T!D -
l
- ll g ;
- ki s e :
-y _ _! _* _,
- l .
r,., , , _
- l. N $ E!$ .
f l a s' S" H=!== :~ 5 0 C l'Y$ Y.,$
- 2 b f_')l l$ ..
**8'
. :i
--a_.
gie 3 :IG
; /g l [
. ! W *,,
ll W= E Y * :5 l.'fr@$EyEL) 94 h W TRN % (P S M j 3 l
~ JM.GCBLE $/25/93
~;;& a
)
GAre i: h. C s' ,
~ MAASLE MLL ACAO %
e
~
, f N8 t Coq ,
* *[*'
e-( k7, i UNITED STATES
*NU :LE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION G
{' l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s., -
/ J SEP 2 7198?
QUALITY ASSURANCE CASE STUDY WORKING PAPER CASE A DRAFT WORKING PAPER - UNDATED i Attached is a copy of the above document. This document was prepared by an NRC contractor and reflects input from members of the Case Study A team, which is comprised of NRC and contractor staff members. This document has not been subjected to the NRC staff review process nor does it reflect any licensee comments that may be offered on it. No revision of this working paper is planned, and this document should no longer be considered a draft. This document, along with other relevant information, will be used as input to a consolidated report on the case studies, which will be subjected to the full NRC staff review proces'. fhW. D. Al tman ve_- Case Study Team Leader gg fb~ j me poiA49 2t3 K\\\1
O 44 6 4 i
,s'.3 -~
-, /
.o, V'
Lic s v g. _ j
, ,f ~
s x, g,y J ,e ,e.- - C _
' Ml Wu_4 m
m . n a w w - ,. . veasmweroN. 0 4 20003 M ~.$ 7 ront F J .Page "; Edit.c Other.g.;gn;y Pcge'#.Pogo W A d.a ,'
- {
, '5A~~*! :~ TON, D. C, yQg ,
JUN 10 M3 u. ,.x -- m.m.,~.
,. . Banemre'r PbleyF '49for. P
.,dr,e. , . , .. .. w
.[ M0RNINu,, - 584,500 .tomac,'Md.ie;ntered theflea trefore': plants in..Washington. .w sta
;]
SUNDAY - 820,4 M .
.'US;MagistratiPhilip'$veige'rt.
~F'd" Marble Hill plant in
* - ' ' " ' ~ * * ' " ' ' ' ' ' " :~M"
--- q p pg jp mident or'the Howardd-
.P;i Biti-Higgmg Dem:ed .wn. Oy .
4 SEATTLE--The prsident o of on/j"yf,.Foley PsiifitiniinTmed ment handed d'own~ by 'a federal i in an iMlch Co.%Weihingtim.'D.C^l 1 of the country's largest electrical ' .' grand jury 'here. Eight ' individuals ? . i contracting firms pleaded not guilty'. includm' g Foley, also were' named in d , m t'ederal court to charges:of rigging c the indictment,'which charges bid -2 bida for construction vf.Weshington : .. rigging ng.') on four of the five Washi sad Indiana nuclear.power.plantsIMPlon Pub!1e Posef Supply Sy t
= . - . .-rw .
- m. r .. . sem?
- u i
u . t
.(!
t >- i' k i
4' 4 pa reg y 4 UNITED STATES y e j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
; E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t, i s., v y SEP 2 71983 QUALITY ASSURANCE CASE STUDY WORVsING PAPER CASE A DRAFT WORKING PAPER - UNDATED i Attached is a copy of the above document. This document was prepared by an NRC contractor and reflects input from members of the Case Study A team, which is comprised of NRC and contractor staff members. This document has not been subjected to the NRC staff review process nor does it reflect any licensee comments that may be offered on it. No revision of this working paper is planned, and this document should no longer be considered a draft. This document, along with other relevant information, will be used as input to a consolidated report on the case studies, which will be subjected to the full NRC staff review process.
hm _ - W. D. Al tman Case Study Team Leader ( l l l poiA-89-2T3 (\dr
.s
t" 6 DRA.'T WORKDG PAPIll DRAFT QUALITY ASSURANCE CASE STUDY WORKING PAPER CASE A l t
9/ 6.
,, D t.7 n?.:iz:;; p QUALITY ASSURANCE CASE STUDY WORKING PAPER CASE A I.
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS A. Introduction J The Nuclear Regulatory Consnission (flRC) has undertaken a study of < selected nuclear reacter constru: tion projects to detennine the important factors or root causes that support effective or cause ineffective nuclear construction projects and assurance-of-quality pmgrams. Several nuclear projects which have experienced najor quality problems in construction (.or design) and several which have not will comprise the study population. This collecticn of site-specific studies and lessons learned will be used by the NRC in the fonnulation of generic policies and programs for the assurance of quality and in responding to the congress (Foni Amendment to 1982-83 NRCAuthorizationAct). These working papers suninarize the findings from the first case study.
- 3. Background The licensee of Case A is constructing its first nuclear station and is presently nearing the half way point in construction of 2
sf aa *
- W.
II.4 G M Unit 1. Unit 2 construction is about 15% behind Unit 1 construction. The construction permits (cps) were issued in the late 1970's. Initial planning and site selection work commenced in the mid 1970's. The licensee is the construction manager for the project. Several of the major construction ccntractors - civil, mechanical and electrical '- as well as several of the smaller contractors, have limited nuclear power plant construction experience. The architect-engineer (AE) has had substantial experience in the design of nuclear power plants. This AE firm generally confines its work to the design area only and does not act as construction manager or constructor for nuclear (or other) projects. The AE frequently works as an extension of the customer's engineering department. Shortly into the construction of this nuclear station, the licensee ex;erienced major problems in the placement of concrete in safety-related structures and to a lesser degree, in safety-related piping work. Some of the construction quality problems were brought to light - through allegations of a former construction worker, which were invest-igated and confirmed by the NRC. An intensive NRC team investigation found that the quality problems in concrete and piping were not isolated events, but were symptomatic of deep underlying, programatic deficiencies in the management of the project and in the program for assurance of quality in the project. As a result of this investigation, i i i
<' s.
GPqgy all safety-related work at the site was halted and the licensee was required to substantially revise its management approach, organization, and staffing for the project. The stop work action was gradually rescinded in stages over the next 2-1/2 years, as the licensee - demonstrated, to NRC's satisfaction, its ability to effectively-manage additional functional project activities. At the time of the Case Study A site review, the licensee had - effectively implemented substantial modifications and improvements to the management of the project, and the project was regarded by cognizant regioral NRC officials as having been turned around and as being something of a model project. The Case Study team findings support this regional assessment. C. Sumarv of Root Causes}}