ML20210P925

Partially Withheld Package of Documents Re Allegations Concerning Facility & Comanche Peak Task Force

ML20210P925
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/17/1986
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20210P907	List: ML20210P901 ML20210P925
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8605130548
Download: ML20210P925 (727)

Text

. . .

gg- ~

p y- - ~r,.m y >= s

~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '

4 1a , j/ '

5 a-

1. Concrete Placements N #

2. A11ecation Number: AC-22, AC-23 and AC-50 k'h.N. 3. Characterization: It is alleged that and M RBM -

e occurred at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station

$M (CPS It is also alle ed that M s

(_-

a in the in the g .

Assessment of Safety significance: The implied safety significance of

' ~

4.

eN

. The individual making allegations AC-22 and AC-23 was interviewed by the j' NRC Technical Review Team (TRT). Allegation AC-50 was judged as having -

~

s' sufficient clarity for technical resolution without initial contact .

k

.].

between the TRT and the alleger. -

?

In testimony at an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) hearing, the i first alleger did not identify a particular structure or concrete place-ment that had " bad concrete work" or that exhibited " sloppy" placement of concrete. To adequately encompass the concerns raised in this allegation, the TRT reviewed random samples of concrete placement packages from three safety-related buildings to determine if the allegations were valid.

' A review of 14 packages from the Auxiliary Building and 3 packages each .

from the Unit 1 Safeguards Building, the Unit 1 Containment-Building (exterior), and the Unit 2 Containment Building (exterior) revealed that the quality control (QC) inspector accepted the forms and reinforcing

.. steel placement prior to each concrete placement. Of the 23 placement packages reviewed,10 had nonconformance reports (NCRs) related to con-crete placement. One package had four NCRs, two other packages had two

{ NCRs each, and the remaining seven each had one NCR. Seven NCRs were resolved with the designation "use-as-is," seven with "repai.r," and one with " reject." The seven placements indicating " repair" were for concrete honeycombing,.and the one indicating " reject" was for the removal of con-

. crete from a small pad. In addition to a records review, the TRT performed 9 _a walkthrough inspection of the safety-related buildings. M F -

uw - w m,m.4,- .,ms mWtheseWP ilt:' . ac w4fiaFCG=@fedh.,

~-

__-_-w--

ee +a="m& " um:ma --

w, __ - _ wm 3_ ;

The. TRT also interviewed two QC inspectors at Comanche Peak who were concrete placement inspectors on some of the concrete placements in the Auxiliary Building reviewed by the TRT. Both QC Inspectors stated that -

they were not cognizant of any " bad concrete work" and/or " sloppy" place-J ment of concrete at CPSES. They stated that all personnel with construc-

, . tion and concrete placement responsibilities would meet prior to each placemerit to resolve any potential problems. They stated that for the concrete placements they were involved with, the work was done in accord-ance with project procedures and other pertinent requirements.. They also

! 8605130548 860417 PDR FOIA F0lA-85-59 GARDE 85-59 PDR g ,33 (v .

O 5

x  :----- - a- - - - -- l-.

m - 9 ~,ys.n . v - . . . ..

'Q'.~, j

f. -

~)

l

'i '

i- stated that placement crews cooperated with requests from QC personnel. i n ,

The individual who made the allegations discussed above was contacted by I

n

• 6 To investigate the allegation of ~ ._ __.__-_-- -s in an Auxiliary

~

Buildi sla he the Tottow) -

h

' I which o l

002-7785-001, 0 , an 4. he TR noted that before

', lacin the first section his mi ave soup concrete cited by the alleger. During placement of the three sections, five batches M

if of concrete were rejected for excessive slump. In four of these cases, two or three cubic yards had been placed as per the requirements of ASTM .-

!] standard method for sampling fresh concrete (ASTM C 172). ASTM C 172 .

l2 requires that samples be taken at two or more regularly spaced interValk' during discharge of the middle portion of the batch; and that samples not be taken from the very first or last portions of the batch. However, 70 .

to 80 percent of each batch was discarded. The concrete already in place was left in the forms. This type of occurrence is considered a normal procedure in concrete placement work and is judged to have no effect on .

safety. * -

5. Conclusion and Staff Positions: The TRT evaluated the allegations by reviewing a random sample of concrete placement record packages, by interviewing two former concrete placement inspectors, and by conducting a walkdown inspection of finished concrete work in three safety-related ,

structures. This level of evaluation was deemed necessary to. adequately encompass the potential sgpe of the allegations, which were not specific about where at Comanche Peak the " bad" and " sloppy" concrete work had been .

! performed. In its records review, the TRT found some discrepancie~s in concrete placements that were identified and resolved by established QC, procedures. However, the discrepancies found are not uncommon in concrete work; the TRT'walkdown provided evidence that the discrepancies were resolved in that the concrete shows no degradation. The TRT also investi-gated the specific allegation concerning " soupy concrete" by reviewing all

'_ the relevant concrete placement packages and found the allegation to be l without-safety significance. The TRT found that mortar had been author-ized in lieu of concrete for a small portion of the struc;ture. Accord-

ingly, these allegations have neither safety significance nor generic j implications. '

Oh L

The individual making A11egatforis AC-22 and AC-23 has indicated his

,: satisfaction with the TRT disposition of. his allegations. dNe ITieger of l ; g J,;(u *iw AC-50 has not been locate <O The TRT is still trying to fina nim for a g,  %

p g,,, y closing interview. .

1 4

?.

~

8. Attachments: None. V 1 f

t .

K-32 p- .

\

. +- , - .u ,

y -

.. _._.._.___..m .

- - __- - i d

j i

4 y . .

i d 9. Reference Documents:

1. Concrete Placement Packages A. Auxiliary Building B. Unit 1 Safeguard Building a .

9 (1) 002-2785-001 (1) 105-7852-005

. (2) 002-2790-003 (2) 105-4790-002 j (3) 002-2790-004 (3) 105-9790-002 1 (4) 002-5790-001 1 (5) 002-5790-003 & -015 ~

3 (6) 002-5790-002 C. Unit 1 Containment (Ext) a (7) 002-7852-003 (1) 101-5805-002 (8) 002-7852-001, -002 & -006 (2) 101-5805-008 a (9) 002-7852-004 -005 & -010 (3) 101-5805-014 9 (10) 002-7852-007

! (11) 002-4852-001 0. Unit 2 Containment (Ext)

(12) 002-5852-001, -002 & -024 (1) 201-5805-002 (13) 002-7873-003, & 002-8873-001 (2) 201-5805-008 y (14) 002-5883-001, -002, -003, &004 (3) 201-5805-014 j 2. Procedures .

(1). CP-QP-11.0 Civ1'1 Inspection Activities.

(2) CP-QP-11.1 Concrete, Soils,. and Reinforcing Steel Testing Activities.

(3) CP-QF-18.0 Inspection Activities.

3. Deficiency and Disposition Reports */Nonconformance Reports t"4 00R No. NCR No. .

(1) 310 (9) 1000 (2) 311 (10)1001 (3) 340 (11) 1034 (4) 342 (12) 1170 (5) 450 (13)84-00327 (6) 499 (14) 82-00125 -

(7) 454 -(15) 1294 (8) 519

-l

4. ASLB Testimony,. July 28,'198'2, page 2924. . .

e .

] 00R was a forerunner to the NCR .

j J

Y 0, .

0 K-33 k .

, . . . . . = , - . , , - , ~ . - . . . . .

.,.g., m.,.-- ,.

--}

4 3

4 e

1' ,

10. This statement prepared by:

c J. Devers, TRT Date i Technical Reviewer Reviewed by: .

L. Shao, Date I i Group Leader j Approved by:

? V. Noonan, Date Project Director )

, 1 1

4 3

} .

1 l ,

4 F

J b,

1 I 1 i

4 A

i 1-4 4

I t

)

9 s.

i K-34 1

i

)

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

_ - -~>w .. .=.a.._-... w _..._.. . _ .

O .h. -

l

. 6 -

! l I 1. Allegation Category: Civil and Structural 4, Concrete Voids and Cracking

2. Allegation Number: AC-25, AC-28, AC-32, AC-33 and AC-34 3 .

! 3. Characterization: It is alleged that the following concrete deficiencies occurred at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES):

a. Hollow places existed in concrete behind the stainless steel

! liner of the Unit I reactor cavity (AC-25).

b. Fresh concrete was placed on top of crumbling concrete during the

construction of the spillway (AC-28).

c. The repair of a 20-foot x 20-foot honeycombed area located in the ' .

Unit 1 Auxiliary Building was inadequate (AC-32). -

a j d. Cracks existed in the concrete reactor cavity wall of Unit I and in i floor slabs in the plant buildings (AC-33).

! l

e. There are numerous concrete voids in building walls that can

'; be located by tapping the walls with a hammer and listening for s

a hollow sound (AC-34).

Allegation AC-25 was investigated by Region IV and documented in

., inspec1Eion reports 80-08 and,80-11, which were reviewed by the TRT as a

, step in its own assessment of the allegation.

.; In addition to these allegations, the Region IV resident inspector requested that the TRT review the following possible reportable design deficiencies involving concrete placing problems.

f. Reportable Design Deficiency Concerns:

5 (1) A void was identified in the Unit 1 Reactor Building Steam  !

Generator Compartment Wall.

l (2) On concrete placement 002-7810-002 at the 810-foot elevation of the Unit 2 Auxiliary Building, embedded foreign material was

.. located with a flex drill.

4. Assessment of Safety Significance: The implied safety significance of these allegations is that, if they are true, the quality of the concrete in question may be indeterminate.

N The NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) interviewed the allegers of allegations AC-25 and AC-28. Allegations AC-32, AC-33, and AC-34 were judged as having sufficient clarity for technical' resolution without initial contact between

.? the TRT and the allegers. "T"/tv c//FTerJ @re Arnw den o,/ r& f er.ptn a's . -

7W T/l7 ot&pfe/ fo OW%Me #e& //61kly h of was &ns6ft lo ob s'o,

-a. The alleger originally stipulated that the hollo _w places were located I behind the stainless steel liner of Unit I reactor cavity, but when interviewed by the NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) he stated that he

. meant Unit 2. In assessing the allegation, the TRT interviewed the

1 f 1 TUEC chief structural

, engineer who stat l

g_. _ _

n s;.n - .

2 , a _; _ w. . ____ _ . .m.

1 removed from one section of the Unit 2 reactor cavity structure,

. honeycombed areas were discovered on the side of the structure

accessible to visual examination. Because of the concern that the honeycombing indicated inadequate concrete consolidation in this section and that the possibility existed that there might also be voids on the opposite side of the reactor cavity wall which were not accessible to visual examination, TUEC examined that section of the concrets wall ultrasonically. The examination revealed the existence of voids behind the stainless steel liner. Their existence and the required repair procedures are documented in Design Change Authoriza-tion (DCA) No. 6663. Repairs were being performed by TUEC at the time of the TRT review.

b. There are two sp111 ways at the CPSES, one located near the safe i shutdown impoundment (SSI), and the other located at the Squaw Creek Dam. The allegation did not specify which was intended, but the SSI spillway was eliminated from co'nsideration because it was constructed

. after June 1978, while the period cited in the allegation was 1976 and 1977. The Squaw Creek Dam spillway was constructed from August 1976 to January 1977.

The TRT review of placement documentation indicated that the Squaw  ;

Creek s'pillway was p3 aced in a single " lift"; therefore, no new concrete could have been placed on hardened or crumbled concrete.

During the interview with the alleger, it became apparent to the TRT that from the types of placements being described he had a general concern about the adequacy of cold weather placement practices during construction of the Squaw Creek Dam and appurtenant structures.

However, he was unable to identify a specific spot where specifications were violated. The TRT examined documentation for cold weather protection for several placements during its I investigation of other CPSES allegations. Those examinations confirmed that cold weather protection was adequate. Furthermore, the Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 3.2, Classification of i Structures, Components, and Systems, indicates that the Squaw Creek i Dam is not a seismic Category I structure. Its failure would not affect safety during a safe shutdown earthquake.

_ {

I

c. The concrete honeycombing referred to in the allegation is documented in nonconformance report (NCR) C-1034. The architect-engineer's direction was to remove the honeycombed area down to sound concrete and then fill the void area with dry pack concrete or small size coarse aggregate concrete, all in accordance with a standard, engineer-approved, repair procedure for such work. The TRT reviewed the repair procedure used (QI-AP-11.0-5) and believes it is adequate' to properly repair the affected area. The repair is documented in Region IV Inspection Report 50-445/79-26. The NRC Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) observed various phases of the repair work from August 19784through January 1979, when the repair was finally completed. The RRI noted that the work was being done in an acceptable manner and in accordance with the approved instructions.

4 K-+3 -

• ,m_

1 __

' ng5.X W5:1.E l ' ~ - w -.c

~ - -- ------

- t - -

1 s  !

q 1

4  :

The TRT inspected documentation pertaining to the honeycombed area in k the Auxiliary Building for concrete placement 002-7852-007 and verified that the area had been repaired. The TRT review of this concrete placement package revealed no documentation discrepancies ,

concerning the repair. I t

d. The existing cracks in the Unit I concrete reactor cavity wall have

, _ been the subject of a great deal of attention by the NRC and the i designer. They have been documented in numerous NCRs, such as NCR H C-650 and NCR C-1034. The TRT reviewed a random sample of the i concrete placement packages for the Unit 1 Containment Building, i Auxiliary Building, and both Safeguards Buildings, and found no 3 evidence of specification violations during the concrete placemerit. ,

The TRT also inspected the cracks documented in NCRs 1034 and 650. 8 4 The crack documented by NCR C-1034 is a small hairline crack, caused I by shrinkage or thermal effects, that is so small that it cannot tapair structural behavior and capacity. Cracks documented by NCR I

C-650 are evaluated in Civil and Structural Category 13.

e. The NRC Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) investigated this allegation (Region IV Inspection Report 50-445/80-16 and 50-446/80-16). The RRI learned that the alleger had worked at the site for 5 weeks in early 1980 in i

? the Unit 1 Safeguards Building at the 790-foot elevation. The RRI l b

found two locations at that elevation where a hollow sound could be '

obtained by tapping a wall with a hammer. He informed TUEC of this l condition and they found several more locations in the same general

, vicinity, all at the 790-foot elevation. Each area was marked and excavated to approximately 2 inches, that is, to the depth behind the first layer of reinforcing steel. The RRI observed several excavations and saw nothing abnormal about the concrete. He also queried the craft personnel who were excavating when he was not present and was informed that all excavations revealed nothing except uniformly solid concrete. The RRI tapped the concrete after it had been excavated to a depth of approximately 4 inches and could no E longer detect a hollow sound. The allegation apparently was based on the premise that what the alleger interpreted as a hollow sound indicated a void in the wall. Excavations of the areas in question revealed no voids in the concrete.

f. (1) This item was not the subject of an allegation. The TRT

. reviewed its disposition because it involved an issue similar to

- those raised in other CFSES allegations.

4 Nonconformance report (NCR) C-82-00858, which was reviewed by

the TRT, indicates that a void did exist in the generator com-partment wall of the Unit 1 Reactor Building. As part of the NCR resolution the matter was reported to Gibbs & Hill (Office Memorandum CPPA-21495, July 20,1982) and they concluded that the wall would perform both its structural and radiation shield-ing functions whether or not the void was filled. However, to ensure that no safety issue could be raised, Brown & Root filled the void with nonshrink grout in August 1982, as documented in Inspection Report IR-C-6682. The TRT agrees that in its repaired state the wall presents no safety problem.

46~

! K-44 1

r

- - - - - .-...-.m + * . . - . . x. -. - - - - . . - - - - - - ---

. +, '

c 7::4 .  :

=-

"a -

- v

---

- - - - - ~ - - - - ------- -

2 ' '

-:t- L- - W. L _ . a . .: w . .. J :_, . u. - ,. - . --a u a

1 .. . . , . . .....s.... . . . . ,.

I (2) This item was not the subject of an allegation. The TRT reviewed its disposition because it involved an issue similar to those raised in other CPSES allegations.  !

The deficiency was documented in NCR C-82-01432, which was l reviewed by the TRT. The TRT learned that a worker drilling  ;

holes for anchor bolts in a floor of the Auxiliary Building  ;

encountered an apparent void and debris. The debris appeared '

to be plywood chips. A~ Brown & Root examination of the area l revealed that the drill had hit an embedded drain pipe and had g removed some of the foam insulation wrapped around the pipe per l 7 drawing MI-781. The driller had apparently mistakenly l 4

identified the foam as plywood. The disturbed insulation and '

concrete were then replaced, as documented in Brown & Root

'j Inspection Report IR-C-7035. The TRT reviewed the Inspection l Report and determined that the area was repaired in an  ;

acceptable manner.

5. Conclusion and Staff positions:

a. The allegation of hollow places in concrete behind the stainless  !

steel liner of the Unit 2 Reactor Cavity is true and cannot be closed  ;

at this time. The area is currently undergoing repairs; the repairs l must be inspected and approved by the NRC Resident Inspector before the TRT can determine that this issue has no safety significance.

The following allegations and concerns were found to'have no struc-tural safety significance.

b. The TRT reviewed documentation for several placement: done in cold weather and concludes that the protection was adequate. In addition, i the allegation has no safety significance, since the spillway in i question is not safety related. l

c. The allegation of honeycombing in the Unit 1 Auxiliary Building is true and the repairs made were in accordance with approved '

procedures. Therefore, the allegation has no structural safety significance.

There are numerous NCRs dealing with honeycombed concrete. Their evaluation and subsequent concrete repairs are well documented and ,

did not result in allegations of improper construction except for those discussed herein. The quality assurance system apparently was adequate in documenting these repairs. However, there appears to have been a breakdown of quality control overseeing the consolidation of concrete as evidenced by the numerous NCRs and allegations AC-25 and AC-32. The results of the evaluation pertaining to inadequate consolidation of concrete will be further assessed as part of the overall programmatic review concerning procedures addressed under QA/QC Category 6 "QC Inspection." Therefore, the final acceptability

". of this evaluation will be predicated on the satisfactory results of l j the programmatic review of this subject. Any adjustments to the i existing conclusion of this evaluation resulting from the programmatic review will be reported in a supplement to this SSER.

] .

bl(o K-45 li -

l

. - - - -.._. a - -. ... .

.-.. . - .g a.- - .. . - .

L l ,

i

? d. While.the# allegation of cracking in the concrete basemat is accurate,  !

L it is not correct to assume that detrimental structural consequences i

[

will result from the cracks. The structures are designed to tolerate I

'! cracks of the magnitude and location of those found.

e. The allegation of numerous concrete voids was not substantiated,

f. (1) The reported void in the generator compartment wall of the Unit 1 Reactor Building is true. The void was filled even though it did not require filling from the standpoint of adequacy of '

design. The TRT determined that the wall in its repaired j condition is safe. '

.: ~

1 (2) The area reported as containing unusual material in the concrete d .

h was adequately repaired so that this condition will have no '

impact 1 fosalon safety! kon u)ill b# by NW dispos The TRT has been nable te locate the alleger of AC-25 to discuss its dis-position with him. The alleger of. AC-28 has been notified by letter of the TRT disposition of his allegation. The allegers of AC-3 8 AC-33 and AC-34 are unknown. firof art Ararer orm<r o / foot es.ptt f ors

, /nal f-tr e T k '

len ben cas,aste is estchfit4 +4 *ir ownhk.

p 6. Actions. Required: The repairs and the repair documentation to the

honeycombing discussed in Item a must be inspected / reviewed and approved l N by the NRC Resident Inspector before the TRT can determine whether this issue has been adequately resolved. The successful completion of the

repairs shall be reported to the TRT and will be verified by the NRC Resident Inspector prior to low power' rations.

s

8. ttachments: None.  !

9. Reference Do'cuments:

}

1. Concrete Placement Packages:

Auxiliary Building Unit #1 Safeguard Buil'd_ing

1. 002-2785-001 1. 105-7852-005

~

2. 002-2790-003 2. 105-4790-002 L 3. 002-5790-001 3. 105-9790-002

4. 002-5790-003 & -015 -

,1 -

~

ll  !

c NY '

4 K-46 .

1 i U -

'l.

ma. .- - -- -. . : _.-..~_.c_- l 0 I

~

e-,- ,

l

.I -

1).

1 5. 002-57900-002 Unit #1 Containment (Ext.) *

' 1. 101-5805-002

6. 002-7852-003

., 7. 002-7852-001,-002 & -006 2. 101-5805-008 1 8. 002-7852-004,-005 & -010 3.. 101-5805-014

' 9. 002-7852-007

10. 002-4852-001 Unit #2 Containment (Ext.)

11. 002-5852-001, -002 & -024 1. 201-5805-002

12. 002-7873-003 & 002-8873-001 2. 201-5805-008

13. 002-5883-001, -002, -0003 &-004 3. 201-5805-014-

2. Deficiency and Disposition Reports /Nonconformance Reports i DDR No. NCR No.

i 310 1000 C-82-00888 311 1001 C-82-01432 i 340 1034 342 1170 450 84-00327 499 82-00125 519 1294 650

. 3. Specification 2323-SS-9, paragraph 8.2.6.1.

i 4. . Inspection Report IK-C-6682.

j S. TUSI Office Memorandum CPPA-21495, July 20,1982.

7 6.84-006 Testimony dated March 7, 1984.

~

7. QA-83-011 (NRC Report).

8. IE Inspection. Report 50-445/79-26, 50-446/79-25.

9. IE Inspection Report 50-445/80-16, 50-446/80-16.

10. Brown & Root NCR No. C-82-00858.

11. Brown & Root NCR No. C-82-01432, Revision 2.

12. Inspection Report IR-C-7035.

10. This statement prepared by:

J. Devers, TRT Date Technical Reviewer R. Philleo, TRT Date Technical Reviewer 3 Reviewed by:

L. Shao, Date Group Leader i Approved by:

l V. Noonan. -

Date e Project Director ,

! i l

)

1 1 dr j K- W i

i

7-. ,

. . - ._ . & .. A m _o . i ~.._.J m .._.c..- . a:. . . _ .. ;.__ -

l 1,

i .. .-

b -

h.

1. InadequateMateriaisUsedin ,

1. .. -- l

2. Allecation Number: @ , S ', AC-20, AC-21, AC-27 and AC-47  !

3. _ Characterization: It is alleged that the following violations of specifi-cations occurred at various times: ,

L E .

i f l

! E

c. Rejected concrete was placed in the turbine generator building (AC-20).

, d. Concrete with excessive slump was placed in containment walls (AC-21). -

, e. Some concrete was placed in the Circulating Water Intake Structure after the concrete was rejected for being over specification limit on. l time to discharge (AC-47). '

3 AC-27 contained no new allegations; it merely reiterated those already made. <

l' l

mn crggioM'E g5 end w;-w ^ ~~ ' ; ssM--ir M m R - H - -

=~' "

c--r-m6 which was reviewec by t1e a ni as ~a sT.ep in us m

D d

)

own assessment of the allegations. , i i

4. Assessment of Safety Significance: The implied safet

_these_ allegations is that, nr nificance of

~ ^ ^=ane _- z- ---3.-- ,;jp) %t 1 3

ollMa+ ions Gf/MrC b ut the ittforMf o f 4t*! G il&Ws inW4 rttws(Wf!"

901 of'WW'- QN}j ree allegers .(AC-19. AC-20.. AC-21) re unknow y therefore, they could

.[ not be contacteo. Ainegar.iuisa C -lo andAC-47we'hejudgedashavingsuf- 3 Se.g. '

ficient clarity for technical resolution without initial contact between pgj the NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) and the allegers.  ;

i

% A-

)

j*g'g was Deficiency and Disposition Report C-446 (December 9,1976), which I

stated that cn untested pile of aggregate, rather than an unacceptable ff7Nf pile, was used. Its N a- In addition, the alleger stated that the equipment operator scraped aggregate off the -

floor of the storage area and dumped it on the conveyer belt so that '

it bypassed testing. '

The consequences of this alleged action may be evaluated by the effect on the properties of fresh and hardened concrete. The purpose of controlling aggregate grading is to maintain concrete of uniform workability and strength. A TRT examination of the concrete basemat .

placement record packages revealed that workability and strength were satisfactory throughout the placement. Less than 3 percent of the concrete was rejected for improper slump, and aT1 concrete tested met F0lA-85-59 em

WJ

._ ._ .-- - m._._ - . . _ . . _. . ._ _

t _ __ . _ - _ _

i 1 -

i l the specti'ications for compressive strength. If any aggregate did l not comply with specified grading, the deficiency did not materially

. affect the concrete properties of the basemat.

b. h + m e " - - ? ? f M F -- M O S A +y_itred_t" 4==+ m M a _ yydI.at'i$"Y .~~ + W +h=V J atne ==r.

-1

- g- _ , _

the batch in the ready six truck without exceeding the maximun '

permitted water-cement ratio. The amount of the addition permitted wa nted on the batch ti . However, The TRT examined all 268 batch tickets an scovere oncre e

] P1 ent Package 101-2781-001, 7-17-75, Oat i ---

't

_ M .. A r#W . _ _-_-- p; s

=------"+1wes  ;,n eacn case, sne volume of water added was within the range pennitted. Although the contractor erred in not getting test laboratory approval, the additions should have had no adverse effect on the concrete. This error, however, indicate i a breakdown in the quality control system. A TRT examination of tast results indicated that all were within specification guidelines: slump values ' ranged from 1 inch to 2-3/4 inches; air content was from 2.0

. percent to 3.2 percent; and 28-day compressive strengths ranged from 5340 psi to 6671 psi. In addition, the TRT examined parts of the ,

basemat which were still accessible. While only a small portion I could be examined visually and this portion did not necessarily l include any batches with added water, the portion examined was in i excellent condition.

c. _ The =u-- c W.c 'not % e - =Cg.._m - --~ " NN'- r %- 1 w ----MAC-lDt', The building contains over 700 l small concrete placements, and all are available for examination. l The TRT examined a random selection of 65 concrete placement packages ,

and found no irregularities. However, the turbine generator building )

is a nonsafety-related structure. The Final Safety Analysis Report,  !

Sec. 3.2, " Classification of Structures, Components, and Systems,"

indicates that the turbine  %%-

is ~

="%

12 3 n..i.und Its af e -- q

- = r M ke @.herefore, t act ty a h

leged to l have occurred would 1

. d. The alleger claimed that a batch with a slump of 4-1/4 inches was placed saw.wg The slump requirement in Gibbs & Hill (G&H)

Specification 2323-SS-9, Revision 4, Section 5.2, states:

A tolerance of up to 1 inch above the indicated maximum shall be allowed for individual batches ,..,vi a n ye 7f _=r = w.

Atch== Mad lor 4.heww recent 10 batcMa %e.,,u. ..t .gr 84 e 1 h ing .-r._=d tha = vi - Mat t, n = + iaena u

'Whenever the measured slump exceeds the indii:ated maximum by more than 1/4 inch, successive batches or truck loads as '

- deposited shall be measured until the slump is within the

. maximum limit.

j ,

1 K-28 i

l

-~-

- = =.-*- me % _ e

_ e om . v. . , m - em.e -=_*=wy,,- -- . ,e..

_. )4 , . _ , _

g 4.,,. ,

__- y. x -

l t

J Thus acement of a batch with a

, single high slump tch ided'~ e Y1 oes ches,

e. The TRT reviewed 51 concrete ckages out of the 140 concrete

j acka es for the which is adandGD Of the 51 e revi , atches o concrete were rejected, 9 for test failure

': (air, slump, temperature), and 4 for bein over the specification a limit on time to discharge. It was ach 1

• .~,. :.

,1

5. Conclusion and Staff Positiens: The felleving allegations were found to ..

have no structural safety significance.

Based on a review of pertinent ' documentation, test results, and the concrete placement packages, the TRT concludes that if nonconforming i aggregate was used in.the basemat of the Unit I reactor, it did not j' adversely affect its concrete properties. The only indication of water addition.found by the TRT-was within the stipulated limits, thus ensuring

~

4 th e. However, the --- -e AXsic The results of the evaluation pertatning to

, the lack of laboratory signatures will be l

^

-==0" - nere ore, the final acceptability o is j _ evaluation will be predicated on the satisfactory results of the program-d matic review of this subject. In its examination of 65 random samples of concrete placements in the turbine building, which is a nonsafety-related i

structure, the TRT found no evidence of irregularities. Batch placements were within tolerances specified by G&H, and the TRT found no documenta-I' tion that these slump requirements had been violated. The placement of a P single batch of concrete with a 4 -inch slump does not constitute a l violation of specifications. The batch tickets state that none of the 1 rejected concrete batches was placed in the circulating water intake;

. therefore, the TRT conclud*es that the allegation is without foundation.

b The allegers for allegations AQC-16 and AC-47 could not be la"+ad for a y closing interview. fry allegers for allegations AC-19, AC-20, and AC-21 -

lj  ;. unwown. AueAaVenk u>pf mc/p in QQgy g.g - f M)4rf ho1 o'ft'orDGes!*

a 4

6. Actions Required: None.

I h

l' l

$0hippt 2. =V p, $ k No o t;;. , h _

4

! K-29 I

l -

_ u.. . . _ - -

c -e_._..._.;._.._:_.._._._ __2 . _ . .a .. .

I l

• e,

• O s

8. Attachments: None.

9. Reference Documents:

1. Brown & Root Deficiency and Disposition Report C-446,12/9/76.

2. Basemat Placement Package 101-2781-001, 7-16-75.

3. Basemat Placement Package 101-2805-001, 2-21-76.

4. Construction Procedure CCP 10, para 4.10.5.6.

5. Gibbs and Hill Specification 2323-S5-9, Revision 4, Section 5.2.

6. Circulating Water Intake Structure Placement Packages.

10. This statement prepared by:

R. Philleo, TRT Date Technical Reviewer l Reviewed by:'

L. Shao, Date Group Leader Approved by:

V. Noonan, Date Project Director e

l l l t

1 1 l l

1

! k-30 l

I 1

1

_n .,,y _

- , . - . . - ..~-.n_ ~r - * ,. _,--e.,, ..e,grs,9., ,,n . ,, , _ - , +. s ,ss.,~4.~.,-

p - - - - -

, y ,

m u

.2.2.2 c.n.cm li . . .... u s, ,_, _

l

., i f' i;

- i P

1. Allegation h Poor Weather Conditions li

2. Allegation Number: M AC-35 and AC-52 l

3. Characterization: It is alleged that th i ter . s I

further alleged that (c) there are several examples of field-cured cylinders which failed specification requirements, that some standard-(i cured cylinders failed specification requirements, and that the Schmidt

'! rebound hammer test was misapplied in resolving problems created by these deficiencies (AC-52).

4. Assessment of Safety Significance: The implied safety significance of ..

these allegations is that, if they are true, the quality of the affected l}

[, concrete may be indeterminate.

'The alleger of AC-24 is unknown. Allegation AC-35 was judged as having b // f sufficient clarity for technical resolution without initial contact between the NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) and' the alleger. The TRT M i

//ntnian 7/fy interviewed the alleger of AC-52.

'\ j i b #"7/ a. In ass sing the allegation concerning the TRT examined concrete plac j!d M S/2p/ p, for a placement on the dome of the Unit 1 Containment Butiding. This ackace indicated that the final batch of concrete placed on the i! M N A.N' / j was batched at 5:59 p.m.; that on bout

'IE 7N/ 300 of r ic yards h aced; that leaving t a ra tus ntea die of the acemen that

t a and that

' ere is no account of an the lift was at p.m.

ir arity during the shutdown. However, i:

hat s

that at because t this ti is sequence o events was not re this t

incident and is mMMuh - ---r-- _mg g ,

The action constitutes a vi lation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion X and indicates er earn ng o

,r Following the completion of the dome, an the a egation of a violation, Brown & Root engaged Muenow and Associates to make an ultrasonic investigation of the portions of the l

K-35

• =l!b E N/I/~'D ( # Q.,J

, .. >.y .

'4

-_ EMO b u k'E. d w [. ..: L .- e.- .6 w. b-.a _.-t --e . ' Q m'34 he.amamAe* *m8-=-.

~

!i l

1 i done potentially affected by the rainstorm. They also engaged Erlin, l Hime, and Associates to interpret the Muenow report. The N j EtusLthe A 3festMwa m - T_ n d.g:/

1 guyeudNT-ann!7he IRI reviewed NCR C-1413. " Final Report on

t3e L.oncrete Evaluation in ~

s

' by Richard Muenow of Muenow and Associates, an iscussion of

} inal Muenow Associates Report, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, j Reactor #1 Dome Concrete Testing for Texas Utilities Service, Inc.,"

1 by B. Erlin of Erlin, Hime and Associates. The investigation j revealed some e

!  ; with a i a orre on o pulse velocity data on 3

the dome with test c linders n i he same materials indicated l 6I si this M WIW M upsunny '

l

. Enlac1 tv . === '

- -- =- -

a -

-i .

. ccordingly, the l ,

j' structure as un sat 1es the design requirements in the Final  ;

Safety Analysis Report. More convincing evidence of the  :

acceptability of the dome concrete was provided by TUGCO's " Final l Report on Structural Integrity Test f r Il inment St_ructure," CPDA-31, 792. The

b. The was in conn g te rev' ewe n detail the relevant concrete placemen namely 105-2773-001 and 101-2808-001.

(1) Placement package 105-2773-001 re orts on the .

Eulasemat, which was placed on . _

-- - - usw%wm.Wwh_ a,say; n,-, a h,Beh Alleged,.T,ba1Jon theNaf:-curlag, when ~-

i theh+2=m'~~~ ' L,,_ _ Cc y . s it -

• - A M -

m __ , _ .: e __w ,-... lA L2s e . rown & Root Interoffice memo IM 41bz stated that al' concrete was well covered with insulation except the edges, where it was difficult a to place insulation because of protruding dowels, but that a i careful examination of the concrete showed no evidence of damage m-

. 6- %, ms -wi-, -n___ _. am % _ n .

t -

4e. 4 .

However, all results exceeded the design strength of 4,0D ps .

The fact that 2 out of 12 failed to meet specification requirements is not serious for concrete such as this, which was i

not loaded at an early age. Subsequent warmer temperatures provided all the strength required by the specifications. To 3 compare the concrete near the dowels with concrete whose protection was not in doubt, the R.W. Hunt Co. ran Schmidt hammer tests on both the suspect concrete and the acceptatile concrete at an age of 4 months. The results are recorded in HCP

.l reports 10664 and 10849, which were inspected by the TRT. For M

]

K-36 L - _. - - . . _ _ __ _ -- - - - - - - - _ _ - -

a a < g u- ,

> =-2m._cm_m _n. : . . . _ .& . u ___ __: -m_

.i i . .

]; -

! l both series of tests rebound numbers ranged from 39 to 46. The l Nnotexpose

. e 'l

~

'; tt was i

to reez ng empera ures or %1 ng its placement; E

~

nerete at that age should not be damaged by freezing; and, - Schmidt hammer readings were the same on suspect concrete as on well protected concrete.

(2) Placement package 101-2808-001 reports on the concrete in the Unit I containment structure, which was placed on December 30,  ;

j 1976. The evening following the placement the ambient

, temperature dropped below 20*F. The records showed a concrete 4 surfacc temperature 'as low as 42*F during the first day and no surface temperatures below 50*F on subsequent days, in spite of the fact that ambient temperatures as low as 12*F were measured.

The protection, as indicatedsby the records, complied with

, all ation was tri red by he inspector noted that the TUEC l

, tor used with a

- Although the two discussed the adec uac of the technique, and a picture was taken To evaluate the condition of concrete alleged to have been i exposed to freezing temperatures, the R.W. Hunt Co. ran Schmidt hammer tests on the suspect concrete and on concrete whose  !

integrity was not in doubt. The results are in HCP report i 220 _

= . , . . . , . . . . . ..,,m.i.,,....

c. JT 11e ation concerning is

' _ contained in the attachments to a amassef ated_ _

ET---

are:- _- y: MUtoihr -- e .w Trek u .. v nen us/ Prisident of t e 7 - - - .di get.E The h ,'

" Based on a review of documents attached and alr e ady in the record, it is apparent that the n,w ;,. m _ _

^ ' - F . mi.n w e

,_-. x 5hDE h " = _ rs D K ger1cien M 'his observation is presumably supported A O ^winst Man 1.he ' mr.arI_*which m .ao- r

.1 j WI4tgledin 18 placements /with"- -* r-- -

• • - ===tts *= W uvu 3 1

kJ The ATlecer+aa< istmutswed and he stated that he was under the ,

v.2 a

l SiD The TRT reviewe e records and oun at a MM, %.m Leo ,

t i

K-37 h

f

- - - .- e.=.-.-..

. - - - s ...e.e . .a n s . _r _ _s., .,.._,._-n._,._-_.n . , ~ - - - _ _ - _ , - . ~ . - . _ _ _ - - - - - . _

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

- xq~ ~:.5 ;g .a. . y;; , - - -

1

_ . - . _ .= ._ -; .. .

I i, ~ ' -

\

li l Il '

1.1 l:

concrete was of desionations C-301. C-302. C-30 or C-306

!l -'

h l: w Furthermore, the

pectrtcappa qc_.-

j

~ -

y r. -

.m u. .5.. v .. , _ _ _ .

The hat American Concrete nstit Code. These req rements are

. where jj and are

,[ are requ rement

t

!! rement is 1 The initive erican crete n ute ui ance o weather protection is provided in j- N ~

Tha an that items such as E _ m. . . . the hg shoold be l - ey are not subject to "reezing i service i

and is defined as r or All the field-curing deficiencies cited in Attachment D to the CASE letter, with the xce stions, f 11 into this less strin t category. The - MMPtin the ,

% L_4gsg= '

..g and __7 in which the De'.4 c

L a _,.. i.m M M in t1e a with tub.Engs.as1f. In these cases, the The j first and third had strengths sufficient y c ose to i to eliminate a concern for safety. The as in a and o M

^

=

l.

1

- The ACI criteria or mass we s ruc ures can pr uce

!i'-,'

strengths as low as 50% of the design strength at 28 days if the j

concrete is maintained at 35'F after protectien is terminated. In

-3 j contrast -

' r a r e m r--- -

(f 108 cylinders with a design strength of 4000 ps' cited in Attachment D as failing to comply, 94% exceeded 3000 psi and the lowest strength was 2477 psi. Of 17 field-cured test cylinders failing to meet the design strength of 2500 psi, 14 exceeded 2000

l. psi, and the lowest strength was 1820 psi. It also may be noted that m e m m Tri - = =rm -%,=-w ... .... iG f the l! t s-mu -enneretestiey represent because they are i n m and, ll

'^

~~" .

u

' K-38 lh

!h

. . . = __. m ;uu- _ m. .m__ . , e ,m , . . _ _ , . . _ . . . _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _

e g .

- _ . , - ~b -

~ . x .- ._ . a za ;_ _.. . u. - . - -. ~ . -- --

4  :

) .

b'

• L  ;

The W ho - "

for l

nrvina _;;uons of cons;ZJ - - -

==* ew -- -

s#.twe -- =mru e =aThe above discussion makes the issue moot except'for the s le cylinder in a slab of the Safeguards Buildin . The

~~

and 1 l

as an i s iscussed .

to delineate zones or regions of poor ual ..." j f th -

l shall be n accor ance w  !

. states, j be y the in re a na '

co . uch tests E ),shall be use Hammer resu ts are normally not permitte as a su or

laboratory-cured test cylinders, which form the basis for acceptance of the concrete. They may be used to judge the ade-quacy of protection or to determine when a portion of a structure may be sa loaded. The on the i . ey un

, tha ra i e except on noted above, the low field-cured streng s were not in critical elements. '

The statement in Attachment D that 1s _ . - - W iaurance- -

7' The statement at Schmidt ammer t

s were no co uctec on sections M

of concrete when both field-cured and laboratory-cured cylinders were below 4000 psi appears to be not pertinent since there were no sec-tions cited where both field and laboratory results were below the design strength.

l S. Conclusion and Staff posittens- a m -

- = - - - - - - ~ ,

i._.--

-_ . ,ggpapy.

(a) The Unit 1 dome was proved sound both by ultrasonic testing and by

, structural integrity testing.

(b) Sections of concrete alleged to have been exposed to freezing

temperature at an early age were shown by in place strength tests to i

have substantially the same strength as concrete whose protection was not in doubt.

(c) The field-cured test cylinders demonstrated adequate protection for

' the type of concrete placed, with the exception of one slab in the Safeguards Building, which was shown by Schmidt hammer testing to be i adequate.

0 K-39 h

\;

i

~ - _ - - _. . . .;: _. . - . . - - - n , -- -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ , - ~ - - - - ~ - - -

,y. 7 . - -

~

y.. .:.- - ~.:..- . - .--... ~ .a ... - . . - . . - . - ~ . . .

e l I '

\. \

l l Accordingly, tbese allegations have no structural safety significance.

However, the results of the evaluation pertaining to theN K , r _ .ww -_ _-_ ..I, the musuaquyaigimmayre,mapy.. .J a niihen slems,6-cyn-G.s+ --'; z--

, %w.;.6 f, ano T.ne ,

j . ~.- 7 U

i,

'spaprmeercelsud-entettwi' ) _l=$---

,-peaams part of t ecw a$ concernin6fAddressed under-- ->m'j, _

rJ  ;

Therefore, the final acceptability of this evaluation will be predicated on the satisfactory results of the programmatic review l' l of this subject. Any adjustments to the existing conclusion of this n evaluation resulting from the programmatic review will be reported in a l' supplement to this SSER.

i Ibe alleger of AC-24 -is unknown. The TRT cannot locate the alleger of k AC-35 and has closed the allegation. The TRT has previously interviewed . '

j the alleger of AC-52, and a closure interview with the alleger is scheduled? ' . -

dMAn~w 7/fu  ;

!?tf/ hts" , 6. Actions Recuired: None. '-

l h l w na. '

l .R 7f l i

i l

i. \ l

< i V

i I  !

l P t I b I l

i I i  ! ,

i I

8. Attachments: None, I

1. i

9. Reference Documents: , l

, 1. Concrete placement package 101-2808-001. '

'.j

. 2. Concrete placement package 101-880$-013.  !

~. 3. Concrete placement package 105-2773-001. '

L. i  ; 4. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion II and Criterion V.

NCR C-1418, i 5.

i

6. Richard Muenow, " Final Report on the Concrete Evaluation in Dome 1 l Roof Section of Comanche Peak Unit No. 1."

i 7. B. Erlin ." Discussion of Final Muenow Associates Report, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Reactor #1 Dome Concrete Testing for -

l Texas Utilities Services Inc." l

8. Final Test Report on Structural Integrity Test for Unit 1 Concrete

[

4 Containment Structures, CPDA-31, 792. *

{  ; 9. Brown & Root Interoffice Memo IM 415?..

10. Brown & Root Interoffice Memo IM 7706. ~

4 11. Hunt Report HCP 10664. -

4 J .

j' K-40 ,

j i

{ -

i l' - * -

- __________m- .. l

,~ . s.; . . -

a. - - -

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

W '

. . . . . .a .

I'".... ,.

l l

J i

12. Hunt Report HCP 10849,

13. Hunt Report HCP 22014.

. 14. Letter with attachments, dated September 20, 1984, to Mr. Thomas Ippolito, NRC, from Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President of Citizens Association for Sound Energy.

, 15. Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings, ACI 301, American Concrete Institute.

16. Cold Weather Concreting, ACI 306R, American Concrete Institute.

17. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, ACI 318, American Concrete Institute.

18. Standard Test Method for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete, ASTM C j 805, American Society for Testing and Materials.

b .

10. This statement prepared by:

R. Philleo. TRT Date Technical Reviewer i Reviewed by: i L. Shao, Date j Group Leader  !

~

i' Approved by:

V. Noonan, 'Date Project Director 4

6 I -

a e .

I

. 6 l

I .

K-41

n ,

E., .

%, e~

1. Allegation.Catenery: Civil and Structural 5, Miscellaneous Concrete

2. Allegation Number: AC-26, AC-31, AC-36 and AC-43 J

3. Characterization: It is alleged that the following irregularities  !

occurred in connection with concrete construction:

a. Equipment was set on grout before the grout properly gained strength throughaging(AC-26).

b. Hanger inserts were installed at improper angles (AC-31).

c. Trash in the bottom of a form was covered with concrete (AC-36).  ;

i AC-43 did not include any new allegations; it merely reiterated those made in AC-26, 31, and 36.

~,,.  ;

4. Assessment of Safety Significance: The implied safety significance of -

these allegations, if they are true, is that the structural integrity of the affected structures may be indeterminate. ,

l The NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) interviewed the alleger of AC-31. The , ,

111egers of AC-26 and AC-X are unknown.1he o/19aFo*" wee so4/ech '4 W* er 3 G, a.; l a.

bt gesaw to nnpeto.s,bef +tre Allegation AC-26 concerns grouting of steel plates which were dent *4 d he attmp d du e / ; Mo g g baseplates for the frames used to support parts of the internal i

7 T'/-do 4j /7/87,

• assembly in Unit No. 2 when they are removed from the reactor pressure vessel. If the grout were damaged by the steel plate being 4 ,9/ g g'"*^7 loaded prematurely, the damage would occur 1sunedtately, while the i 77 69-70 grout was weak. If the grout survived the loading operation without damage, it probably would not suffer damage in use, since it gains strength rapidly while it is fresh and at a decreasing rate as it ages.

All elements of the internal assembly were located at the 860-foot.

l

,Q(_*/,(,y elevation. The TRT inspected all the grouted plates at the 860- and 862-foot elevations and found no evidence of grout failure. While the allegation may be true, all the grout survived the initial loading M without damage. If true, a quality control issue exists. The TRT Civil and Structural Group did not look into the QA/QC aspects of ,

this allegation. ,

b. It is alleged in AC-31 that Ricbond anchor bolt inserts were gg installed between the 860- and 905-foot elevations in Unit I at angles not perpendicular to the concrete surface and that this '!

l4, b Co mm condition was compensated for by use of tapered washers. The I alle'gation referred to discrepancies as great as ten degrees. The h *d.g allegation was addressed in NRC Irtspection Report 50-445/83-27, which was reviewed by the TRT.

I 5- 4-32 The'TRT found that Brown & Root Procedure CP-CPM 9.10. " Fabrication  ;

f* 9P A'h'

• of ASME-Related Component Supports," stated in Section 3.3.2 that:

tR-7T-20 -

~

l E F0lA-85-59 l.

k ' - - ~ ~. '

.g- -

,- __ - . .u . . - =.a a s - -- .. - . ~ . . AL" l

1 .

i. l 1

Surfaces of bolted parts in contact with the bolt or nut shall have t. slope of no more than 1:20 with respect to a plane normal to the bolt axis. Where the surface of a high strength bolted part has a slope of more than 1:20, a beveled washer shall be used to compensate for the lack of parallelism.

. Thus, inserts may depart 3 degrees from perpendicularity without any 4 compensation and may depart further than 3 degrees if beveled washers l I

are used. The procedure mentioned no upper limit on lack of perpendicularity.' It did, however, stipulate that the predrilled holes in the tubular steel hanger safety-related supports may not be enlarged without prior approval.

j i

The TRT inspected 150 anchors between the 860- and 905-foot sisvations. The inspection consisted of a visual check of pa i dicularity of the "as-installed" anchors, the ;; ,- ' " ---ofp oe m ,,,,,,y non perpendicular inserts without the compensation of using beveled washers, the maximum extent of insert deviation from perpendicu-larity, and the evidence of hole enlargements. Two were found to deviate from perpendicularity by more than 1:20; in these cases y beveled washers were used. No -heap hole enlargements were found.

Thus, the TRT found no violation of the installation procedure. The allegation correctly. asserts that some anchor inserts were not perpendicular to the concrete surface; however, that in itself did not constitute a violation of procedure.

c. Allegation AC-36 is concerned with trash from a Christmas party in December 1978, that was thrown into the form and was covered with concrete that was being placed on one of the two containment struc-tures. The alleged incident is extensively discussed in NRC Inspection Report (IR) 50-445/79-20, which was reviewed by the TRT.

• Interviews with alleged participants, which were reported in IR 50-445/79-20, cast considerable doubt as to whether the party actually occurred. It was established in the inspection report that during December'1978 the al .eger was at the project only on December 2, 3, and 4.

The TRT obtained a printout of all concrete placements on the containment structures, and determined that the only placement which occurred during the period in question was on the done of Unit 1 on December 3, 1978. The TRT examined c6ncrete placement package 101-8805-002, which contained a complete narrative of the placement operation by the placement inspector. Nothing unusual was noted, and ,

both the formwork and cleanliness were checked as " satisfactory" on the checkout card. If anything unusual, such as dumping of trash, did take place, the structural integrity of the dome concrete was not compromised. The dome was proven to be adequate both in strength and j

. in structural capacity, as indicated by the Unit 1 structural ,

integrity test discussed in Civil and Structural Category 3. l C y M lito h M s k $G W l p/heTRTinterviewedtheindividualwhohadraisedtheconcern regarding the installation of anchor bolt inserts. w"'

,1 m,._ . . , ,, ' .n,; > - m ' ' " - - a n, nm " '"' >a ene =^ 8J- ^#

-- _ _ g, a and 4 n f47 -

- n M j * * * -- ; i[ vn? a, 3

1

, K-A .

[ ...- - b ,,,1

• ~' W -

" ~ ~ ~ ~ ' '

4c ( byrfy W O D& W

{

w ,y/ lor Of NYW b & # SW NO

..m d g t ' n ...,o

. n in tha -'stin?

"__J aev"w='," t ", y"3 n

_ ,s. , i nv--- . =;e,L _ m W

..] .;- C -

5. .i Conclusion and Staff Positions: The TRT concludes that these allegations I have no structural safety significance. '

e' a.

All of the grout in question survived the initial load application without failure (AC-26). The possibility of premature loading will  !

be assessed as part of the overall programmatic review concerns

b. procedures addressed under QA/QC Category 6 "QC Inspection."

No infraction of installation procedures for anchor inserts was found (AC-31).

c. The allegation that trash was dumped into the bottom of a concrete form cannot be substantiated. Even if true, the containment ..

y

, structure concrete, including the dome, was shown to be adequate and acceptable in the in situ structural integrity test (AC-36).

The TRT scheduled an interview.with the alleger of AC-31 to discuss the

.TRT findings, but he declined t6. appear.

lieu of a closing interview. 'The allegers A letter will.be sent to him in of AC-26 and AC-36 are unknown to the TRT. l

~

6. Actions Required: None.

8. Attachments: None.

9. Reference Documents:

1. NRC Inspection Report 83-27.

s

2. NRC Inspection Report 79-20.

3.

Brown & Root Procedure CP-CPM 9.10 Section 3.3.2. I i

10. This statement prepared by: '

i R. Philleo TRT Date I Technical Reviewer l

Reviewed by: .

i L. Shao, Date

! Group Leader i

Approved by: '

V. Noonan, Date '

Project Director -I l

l -

n. -...... - . - .. = -.. . . - . . .= . dw .5 . xma'.

m.a. ~ .

'l

.u -l ,

/

! b ,

8 i

+ 1. Allegation Category: Civil and Structural 6, Rebar Improperly Installed j ,

or Omitted

2. Mlegation Number: AC-30, AC-37, AQC-12, AC-38, AC-39 and AC-49 h . <

j

3. Characterization: It is alleged that reinforcing steel (rebar) was not  :  ;

properly inspected upon receipt at the site (AQC-12 and AC-37). It is 8l

! also alleged that rebar was omitted in the following locations: ' '

a. A 6 foot x 6 foot section of concrete in the Safeguards Building (AC-30).

b. The Unit 1 containment structure wall, specifically horizontal " tie" I reinforcement (AC-38).

j ~.

t c. Four column faces in the wall along column line EA of the Auxiliary j Building (AC-39). ,

i q d. It is also alleged that reinforcement was installed upside down in a q building near the Unit 2 co'ntainment structure (AC-49).

! In addition to these allegations, the Region IV resident inspector

.I~

requested that the NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) review the following possible reportable design' deficiencies involving reinforcing steel (rebar):

e. Reportable Design Deficiency Concerns: ,

j (1) Rebar was omitted in a reactor cavity concrete placement between ,

the 812-foot and 819-foot 1/2-inch elevations in the Unit 1 j Reactor Building. I

,i (2) Brown & Root construction requested a change in the configura- ,

tion of two rows by nine layers of No. 9 reinforcing bars (2 x 9 <

, - #9), as shown on drawing 2323-51-0572, Rev. 4, to a continuous

, circular arrangement.

(3) Because of interferences with 14-inch diameter sleeves, the horizontal tails.of No.11 vertical reinforcing bars within the triangular columns surrounding the reactor cavity were modified I to clear the sleeves. Also because of extreme congestion within the columns, stirrup details were modified.  !

't ,

(4) Six No.10 additional horizontal bars were omitted from a beam l above a construction opening on column line KA between 6A and 7A in the Auxiliary Butiding.

(5) Nine No. 9 and two No. 4 additional reinforcing dowels were

' omitted around an elevator shaft door in the Unit 1 Reactor Building.

, (6) Forty-six No. 9 dowels on the face of the wall in the excess i letdown heat exchanger room in the Unit 1 containment structure l were omitted. '

o F0 r8e5-59 1 F/6  ;

.aa_ .h m ww.u . ..u m.,. .m w -

m .. .

_, u .

i (7) TenAo.8additionalhorizontaldowelswereomittedfromabeam over a construction opening in Safeguards Building No.1.

(8) Brown & Root construction requested authorization to substitute No. 5 vertical wall rebars in lieu of the No. 8 wall rebars required in two corners of a wall in the Auxiliary Building.

4. Assessment of Safety Sianificance: The implied safety sf3 nificance of these allegations is that, if they are true, the structural integrity of the areas in question may be indeterminate.

The individual who made allegations concerning the improper receipt inspec-tion of rebar (AQC-12 and AC-37) was not initially contacted by the TRT because the allegation was sufficiently clear to allow the TRT to proceed

^

with its investigation. 9 b * -U..,

T

' - N %J l gations conceraiaa + " - :'- i ' - 1 U . . . .

• 0, . . . L ..

t .2 _ ; '- W *_ m h ;R"4 Minn N ** . "- ?? } ' - -" 'bre ". " :-d

+ a the ... g y ;

d-- +W The TRT did not init 11y contact the individual who made the allega-

[1[-3f _ _ tion concerning the rebar in alled upside down (AC-49) because the alleger

~ stated the problem had been co ected. The individual who made the allega-tion concerning the missing reba n the Safeguards Building (AC-30) was f#/ A M contacted by the TRT to clarify his legation.

V The allegations that rebar was not prcperly inspected upon receipt (AQC-12 and AC-37) relate to the use of weldable reinforcing steel associated N'b with the installation of radial shear-bar reinforcement at the base of the

[ormer M E containment structure. At this location, Grade 60 1-inch x 4-inch steel bars were joined by full penetration butt welds to No. 18 ASTM A615 1 b /y S et Grade 60 reinforcing bars. Gibbs & Hill specification 2323-55-10 required

' / yp . g that a special chemical analysis be performed on each heat of reinforcing steel which was to be welded. Upon receipt, this reinforcing steel could 4 #/ 7f /'/4 Al be identified by the results of a special chemical analysis attached to the mill report. The QC inspector would verify that the results of the special chemical analysis conformed to the requirements of specification.

~

2323-55-10. If it was acceptable QC personnel would then paint one end N iue.

l It is alleged the No.18 Grade 60 reinforcing steel was used prior to the proper inspection upon receipt by QC in 1975. The TRT reviewed testimony l taken during an interview in which the alleger stated that the QC inspector was pressured into hurrying t6e inspection process and that the reinforcing steel that was used prior to QC inspection was subsequently l l

• inspected and accepted off by the QC inspector. This may indicate a j partial breakdown in the area of QC receipt inspection of reinforcing

' k steel. The TRT reviewed the receipt inspection reports for all No. 18 reinforcing bars received in 1975 and determined that three shipments were received that had a special chemical analysis attached to the mill report. l The receipt inspection reports for these three shipments were signed off i

by QC, indicating that an inspection had been performed. However, the TRT i could not determine from its review of these receipt inspection reports

! whether any reinforcing steel was used prior to proper QC receipt

} inspection. ,

-h aJte3ekm (Ac-1bA.39) ce% m t34 ftby a O V'O I Cd O' M **dd ""3

) g c.wy . w u.a,7 o,;m3 -p. 6r a. S- s... 4. e.es ,#,

i ~ m ~~e ..~. ~ m.m

{

M%, ,

r,...,

.m .

t _ _

.9- = ,; --o.

- =g ~ y. n, , mv

. n - v .m w ,~ v.m

. myn m , y .

.n ,

~ : .. sus i e 4..

f I

The TRT's safety assessment for the remaining allegations and reportable design deficiencies are discussed below:

2 a. During an interview with the alleger, the TRT learned that the I allegation of missing rebar in the Safeguards Building actually referred to the return pump station at Squaw Creek Dam (AC-30). For

, the detailed assessment of this allegation, see Civil and Structural i Category 12, AC-29.

1

{ b. This allegation (AC-38) was first reviewed in NRC Region IV

! Inspection Report No. 79-25, which refers to the omission of

horizontal tie rebar in the Unit I containment structure, and

? concludes that the alleger was referring to an occurrence in the Unit 2 containment structure rather than in Unit 1. This event

! occurrad shortly before the alleger terminated his employment and it

was assumed by the Region IV inspector to be the event to which he

+

referred. The omission of horizontal shear tie reinforcement in Unit 2 was originally investigated in Region IV inspection report 79-18, which notes that this reinforcement had been omitted near the junction of the containment wall and the hemispherical dome and was j subsequently placed at a higher elevation. An analysis by Gibbs &

6 Hill (G&H) concluded that the structure would be capable of carrying the design 1 cads with the reinforcement in the as-butit location. To determine if t*.e allegation did indeed pertain to the Unit I containment structure and if all the reinforcing steel was placed in the Unit 2 containment wall as required, the TRT reviewed all 33 concrete pour packages (101-5805-001 through 101-5805-033) pertaining

to the main concrete placements in the Unit 1 containment wall.

These pour packages contained rebar placement checklists which documented the results of inspections performed by B&R QC confirming the placement of the reinforcing bars to the applicable drawings.

The TRT found three placenent inspections in which the reinforcing

, bar placement was initially checked as unsatisfactory; the problems .

were then corrected and the placement was signed off as satisfactory.

The other 30 inspections performed were all checked as being satisfactory in that there were no deviations from the drawings.

c. On October 27, 1977 a nonconformance report (NCR) C-806 was issued reporting the omission of 12 No. 8 vertical wall reinforcing bars at 4 column locations in.r.he wall along column line EA of the Auxiliary Building (AC-39). The reinforcing steel had been omitted between the t

810-foot, 6-inch and 831-foot elevations and involved four separate l' concrete placements made from May to October 1977. This information

. was submitted to G&H engineering for resolution. G&H performed an analysis which showed that the columns remained capable of carrying the design loads without the missing reinforcing bars and further directed that the bars be omitted from the columns for the remainder of their height through the 873-foot, 6-inch elevation.

d. The TRT reviewed the April 10, 1979, transcript of a Region IV l interview with an alleger and identified an allegation that l reinforcement was installed upside down in a building near the Unit 2 containment structure (AC-49). However, during the interview the alleger claimed that the problem had been corrected prior to concrete placement. ,

4 w _ __ __ - -

, y .. . m .:n

. = , - ~.

e . 2 .,vs arwa:wa_.ww  : _ w o m a _.

! e. (1) The reinforcing steel that was placed between the 812-foot and

( 819-foot, 6-inch elevations in the reactor cavity wall of the

Unit 1 Reactor Butiding was completed and inspected to e drawing 2323-51-0572, Rev. 2. After the concrete was placed, 1 l Brown & Root received Rev. 3 to the drawing showing a .

l substantial increase in reinforcing steel over that which was l J installed. G&H engineering was infomed of the omission by

) Brown & Root nonconformance report C-669. G&H engineering ,

replied that the omission of this additional reinforcing steel ,

2 did not in any way impair the structural integrity of the l

! structure. G&H stated that the additional rebar was added as a )

precaution against cracking which might occur in the vicinity of '

the neutron detector slots should a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) occur. A portion of the omitted reinforcing steel was placed in the next concrete lift above the 819-foot, 1/2-inch 4

elevation. G&H stated that this was done to partially 4 compensate for the reinforcing steel omitted below and to minimize the overall area subject to possible cracking.

The TRT requested documentation to indicate that an analysis was

! performed supporting this conclusion. The TRT was subsequently informed that an analysis had not been performed.

j (2) In response to Brown & Root construction's Request for

' , Information or Clarification (RFIC) RBCR-37, Design Change / Design Deviation Authorization (DC/DDA) No. 832 was i issued stating that the configuration of the 2x9-No. 9 reinforcing bars (two rows by nine layers) as shown on drawing 2323-S1-0572, Rev. 4, could be changed to a continuous j circumferential

• arrangement. The TRT reviewed this drawing and 2

determined that these bars were among those omitted in the

! concrete placement between the 812-foot and 819-foot, 1/2-inch elevations and subsequently placed above the 819-foot, 1/2-inch elevation (See e(1) above.) Revision 4 shows each of the four sets of No. 9 bars used to form the configuration required were to be bent in two places to form an approximate circular configuration when placed. The DC/DDA stated the bars could be bent to a specified radius to form a true circular arrangement.

The change, therefore, only affected the way in which the bars ,

were bent and did not reduce the load-carrying capacity of the structure. - -

(3) During the placement of reinforcing steel within the triangular t

' columns surrounding the reactor cavity at the 826-foot,11-inch elevation, interferences were encountered. The horizontal tails of the No.11 vertical reinforcing bars were interfering with 14-inch-diameter sleeves already in place. The TRT reviewed DC/DDA No. 6918 and the attached sketches which showed that six bars were cut and replaced with bars tailed up to achieve i total anchorage and three bars were bent down to clear the j .

sleeves. -

Also, due to congestion problems, the design of the No. 4 stirrups surrounding the ten No. 18 circular bars was modified x-s(

y u n ~g.s m. a .4 - - -

, - ,.. m;m ,

a r < mm . . . xx , . . ; __ u= n _xw _

~

{ ... ~

i I j to allow for installation. The stirrup design was modified to a t two piece design rather than one piece, as originally designed. ' '

This modification was permitted only within the triangular j columns, i

i (4) On October 26, 1977, nonconformance report (NCR) No. C-809 was l issued by Brown & Root reporting the omission of six No. 10 l additional horizontal reinforcing bars from a beam over a i construction opening on column line KA between 7A and 6A in the

{ Auxiliary Building at the 831-foot, 6-inch elevation. EH l engineering issued DC/DDA No. 558 in response to the NCR. G&H l engineering stated that the reinforcing bars were not required ,

provided that one of the following conditions was met:

l (1) shoring remained within the construction opening until the slab above 831-foot,.6-inch elevation and the wall along column i line KA above this elevation reached their design strengths, or I (2) slab shoring remained adjacent to the construction opening 4 until the concrete used to close the construction opening had reached its design strength. The intent was to provide adequate

, support to the 831-foot, 6-inch slab from'either the wall above, the wall below, or from shoring. The disposition of the NCR showed that the shoring was left in the construction opening until the concrete wall and slab above had cured. The TRT i reviewed the design change and solutions proposed and found the

. approach taken td be satisfactory. The TRT also reviewed drawing SAB-00711, which showed that the construction opening was closed with concrete pour No. 002-4810-042 on January 30, 1979. .

(5) Brown & Root issued NCR No. C-810 reporting the omission of nine 4 No. 9 and two No. 4 additional reinforcing dowels around the elevator shaft door in the Unit 1 Reactor Building at the 832-foot, 6-inch elevation. G&H DC/DDA No. 477 indicated that

! the nine No. 9 dowels were to be drilled and grouted in place, I

and that the two No. 4 dowels could be placed without doweling into the slab. A review of the safety implications of the omitted reinforcing bars by Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) Design Engineering showed that cracking of the concrete

• in this area could have occurred during conditions such as a seismic event if.the reinforcing steel had not been placed. The

, review concluded that the cracking would not have affected the

safety of the structure. .

. (6) Or. October 31, 1977, NCR C-811 was issued by Brown & Root j reporting the omission of 46 No. 9 dowels on the face of the '

wall in the Excess Letdown Heat Exchanger Room in the Unit 1 Reactor Building. The civil QC inspector involved stated that the reinforcing steel had been installed and checked but that it was subsequently removed to allow for the installation of steam i 1

i generator lower supports and reactor coolant pump tie supports

and not replaced. G&H engineering directed that the dowels be j drilled and grouted in place.

)

! c1

! K-8$

1 L . _ _ _ _ _

.. ; y^ ,.,u . . ,:n g' ,

9:w - -- -

y g >

7.QQ s.g b. , 4 m x 3_ ' gg _ 3 __

3 I

~

.! i (7) On Detober 21, 1977, concrate was placed which was to have contained ten No. 8 additional horizontal reinforcing dowels  ;

that were to run over the top of a construction opening in the l Unit 1 Safeguards Building. NCR C-815 was issued by Brown &

' Root reporting this omission. In response to the NCR, G&H l I

engineering decreased the size of the construction opening in the 7-S wall by placing a vertical construction joint 1 foot, 6 inches from the east face of the C-S/7-5 column. Decreasing the size of the opening allowed the ten No. 8 reinforcing bars to be placed with sufficient anchorage length developed by hooking the ends down into the 1-foot, 6-inch space. The TRT reviewed drawing 558-1065, which verified the decrease in >

4 opening size, and also showed the concrete pour numbers i (105-4810-018 and 105-4810-034) for concrete placed in the l 1-foot, 6-inch space and in the wall over the opening to the 829-foot, 6-inch elevation. A check of the rebar checklists

' included in these pour packages showed the rebar installation was inspected and accepted. Drawing 558-1065 also showed that i the construction c?ening was closed with concrete pour No. l 105-4810-019.

(8) Brown & Root construction issued request for information or clarification (RFIC) C-1987 on November 3,1977, which requested authorization to substitute No. 5 vertical reinforcing bars in -

. the wall 5 feet- 4 inches north of column line 3-A for the ddths of the column line F-A & G-A walls (corner bars) in lieu ,

of C e No. 8 bars shown on the drawings. This involves the intersection of two walls. In assessing this issue, the TRT reviewed drawing 2323-5-0751, Rev. 15, which showed that the vertical bars in one of the walls, 5 feet, 4 inches north of column line 3-A between F-A and G-A, are No. 8 at 8 inches I

center to center (8 9 8") each face and that the horizontal reinforcing is No. 6 9 8" each face. Drawing 2323-5-0746, which shows the other walls involved along column lines F-A and G-A north of column line 3-A to be secondary walls. Drawing 2323-S-0785 gives the reinforcing requirements for secondary walls when the reinforcing is not otherwise noted on the elevation drawing. The walls along column lines F-A and G-A north of 3-A are 1 foot thick and require No. 5 9 8" each way in each face. The No. 5 bars as installed in the walls along column lines F-A and G-A are, therefore, acceptable. In summary, one wall had No. 6 and No. 8 bars and the intersecting walls properly had No. 5 bars. The question involves the correct bars to use at the point of intersection (corners),

t ' Drawing 2323-5-0785 also indicates that where two walls intersect, the types of vertical corner bars used should be based on the thicker and/or more heavily reinforced wall. The four bars required in each corner are No. 8 based on the reinforcing in the wall 5 feet, 4 inches north of column line  !

3-A. The TRT reviewed DC/DDA 518, Rev. 1. dated November 9, 1 1977, which also verified that the No. 5 bars were acceptable for the wall but that the No. 8 vertical wall bars were to be installed in the corner as required. The TRT also reviewed

. concrete pour package 002-4831-017, which showed that the K-e L __ _ - .- . ...,-.....:_._ __ --

u, 3 ppxp-g v g w :.:,

-a w , ,'-

- -- w . . .ww. a .~. .

l 3

i j -

i reinforcing steel installation as per DC/DDA 518 Rev. I was inspected and accepted and that the concrete was placed on November 11, 1977. Therefore, the TRT concluded that the  ;

correct bars were used.

The six documented structural sections with oritted reinforcing

- steel above indicate a breakdown in the quality control program as evidenced by the fact that these omissions were not detect 9 j prior to concrete placement.

5. Conclusion and Staff Positions: For the allegations concerning improperly i inspected rebar (AQC-12, AC-37), the TRT concludes, based on the fact that the reinforcing steel used was subsequently accepted by QC, that this -

issue has no effect on the structural safety of the structure.

. The TRT reached the following conclusions for the remaining allegations and reportable design deficiencies:

a. Allegation AC-30, which refers to the return pump station at Squaw Creek Dam, not the Safeguards Building, is examined in Civil and Structural Category 12, AC-29.

b. For AC-38, the TRT concludes that the horizontal shear bar reinforcement was placed in the Unit 1 Containment Building wall as

. required and further' agrees with the conclusion drawn in Region IV Inspection Report No. 79-25 that the allegation refers to the Unit 2 containment structure, where the G&H analysis showed that the structure would be capable of carrying the ' design loading with the reinforcing steel in its as-built location. Therefore, the TRT concludes that this issue has no safety significance.  ;

c. The TRT reviewed the G&H analysis and agrees with their methodology and conclusion (AC-39). The TRT, therefore, concludes that this allegation has no structural safety significance.

d. The TRT concludes that since this instance of. improperly installed rebar was corrected prior to concrete placement, this issue has no adverse effect on the structural safety of the structure.

e. (1) The TRT cannot determine the safety significance of this issue until an analysis is performed verifying that the reinforcing steel in the as-built condition is adequate.

~

. (2) The TRT concludes that the change made to the No. 9 reinforcieg' bars did not affect the load-carrying capacity of the structure.

(3) The TRT finds the modifications made to the interfering bars to be acceptable and to have no adverse effect on the structural safety of the structures. l (4) The TRT finds that the omission of the additional reinforcing bars will have no adverse effect on the structural safety of the structure because shoring left in place until the concrete had .

I cured made the additional reinforcing steel unnecessary.

i K-I L . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . . _ , , _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ .,_-- _ _ . _ . _ _ . .

r

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

\

l 0

• C.-

(6) The TRT concludes, based on the fact that the reinforcing steel l was subsequently placed as per the disposition of the NCR, that I there is no adverse effect on the structural safety of the structure.

l l

(6) The TRT concludes, based on the fact that the dowels were  !

subsequently installed as per the disposition of the NCR, that l this incident had no adverse effect on the structural safety of the structure.

(7) The TRT concludes that by decreasing the size of the construction opening, which allowed the reinforcing bars to be placed with sufficient anchorage length, this issue has no structural safety significance.

(8) Based on the fact that the No. 8 vertical wall bars were ~

installed in the corners as required, the TRT concludes this -

issue has ne structural safety significance.

However, the results of these evaluations which pertain to gggwrq MftgBDtt .'ir.LcJpf70stiecth ,um p =m ** 2~

=N NmETMf*1* ,

part of the OveraWiMtj5a3RRatievreview concerning procedures addressed -

ggno.,em.=rr% A~+h ll;# Therefore, the final l acceptability of these evaluations will be predicated on the satisfactory results of the programmatic review of this subject. Any adjustments to the existing conclusion of this evaluation resulting from the programmatic review will be reported in a supplement to this SSER. .

Subsequent to its investigation, the TRT attempted to contact the indivi- A-duals who made the allegations discussed above to inform them of the TRT's */

findings. The individual who made Allegation AQC-12 and AC-33GP#  %,l 3 locatad. The individual who made Allegation AC-30 was informed of the l g TRT's findings by letter. The TRT is attempting to contact the individual '

who made Allegation AC-49.

l g 4 -00 C)

W 6. Actions Required: TUEC shall provide an analysis of the as-built condition t of the Unit I reactor cavity that verifies the adequacy of the reinforcing ' I

//- g g /2 steel between the 812-foot and 819-foot 1-inch s elevations. The analysis l l shall consider all required load combinations.

AQC-I1-  !

l

%lle er A '

l N j 3 t4 .

A, .

7'estebo g yy 34 B G, 3 N

Y,*.2 ; % e .- -* *'

l M .5% .'..[. M h2 :.[.Q.M.j Ff i ' Dei.h f. b.% *~J M [?@~ YJ$fsM4M.M-.nn A E 5 " * ~

u n.m :c . ..o:. = , c -- - - - - - --

-_a . , . - - -

.;.. . _ . . . . . ~ .~

., . . . . . 4 . . . .. . . ..

l 1 l 1

3 8. Attachments: None.

9. Reference Documents:

l l 1. Improperly inspected rebar: .

i (1) Testimony A-4 84-006.

.- (2) Drawing 2323-52-0505.

(3) Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-55-10.

(4) WES-12 Radial Shear Bar Fabrication.

9 I 2. Inspection Report 50-446/79-25.

! 3. Inspection Report 50-446/79-18.

4. DC/DOA 5536, Rev. 1.

3 5. Calculation Package SRB-122C. -

j 6. Concrete Pour Packages 101-5805-001 through 101-5805-033.

.i 7. NCR No. C-806.

! 8. Drawing 2323-5-0757.

- 9. DC/DOA No.'486.

10. Gibbs & Hill GTT-1697.

11. Gibbs & Hill TWX-1035.

12. Calculation SAB-124-C1.

13. Drawing 2323-51-0572 Rev. 2, 3, and 4.

'. 14. NCR No. C669.

j 15. Gibbs & Hill GTN-198R3.

16. -Drawing 2323-01-0572 Rev. 2, 3, and 4.

'; 17. Drawing 2323-51-0574 Rev. 2, 3, and 4. -

j 18. DC/DDA 832. -

19. TWX - 1154.

20. DAX - 123.

2

21. DAX - 133.

22. RFIC-RBCR-37.

23. DC/DDA 6918.

24. Gibbs & Hill GTT - 4837.

25. NCR No. C-809.

26. Gibbs & Hill GHF-2078.

27. Gibbs & Hill DC/DDA 558.

28. Drawing 2323-5-0745, Rev. 13.

29. TWX-1067.

30. DAX-38.

31. Drawing SAB-00711. -

32. Pour Pachge 002-4810-042.

33. NCR No. C-810.

j 34. Gibbs & Hill GHF-2165.

- 35. NCR No. C-811.

i 36. Gibbs & Hill GHF-2183.

37. NCR No. C-815.

38. Drawing 2323-SI-0622, Rev. 20.

39. Gibbs & Hill GHF-2186.

. 40. Draw 1ng SSB-1065.

1

41. Pour Packages 105-4810-018, 105-4810-034. ~

42. Drawing 2323-5-0718, Rev. 3.

] 43. Drawing 2323-5-0785, Rev. 7.

44. Drawing 2323-5-0751, Rev. 15.

45. Drawing 2323-5-0746, Rev. B.

bl K-y!

._w- --. - w w.w. ,__ ..+m--~w-

. .* w __

_ _c._

_mw..-.eA-.--- . ---4 -.*w - - - * - a-..- - - -

s., , - , . . . m.

a u

..:~..:....-...-......a......a.:.-

=

4 4

l 46. DC/DDA No. 518 Rev. 1.

, 47. Pour Package 002-4831-017.

48. RFIC-C-1987.

49. RFIC-C-1975.

50. Region IV Record of Interview, 4/10/79.

t

! 10. This statement prepared by: .

T. Langowski, TRT t Date Technical Reviewer I

i l i Reviewed by:

! L. Shao, Date  !

l Group Leader '

i Approved by:  ;

4 V. Noonan, Date Project Director k .

1.

Y l I I I e

4

. O I

r I

I 1 1

1 0

1 6b K-26 l- e l

- l

l. -- ~ _ _ ., max .

Li ; *) *~

5  !

l 1. Allegation Category: Civil and Structural 7, Uncontrolled Repair i

2. Allegation Number: AC-10 l

3. Characterization: It is alleged that the removal of a Hilti bolt from the  ! I floor at the 852-fout level of the Safeguards Building resulted in a i cone-shaped section of concrete being removed which was later repaired in 1 an " uncontrolled manner." '

l

4. Assessment of Safety Significance: The implied safety significance of i this allegation is that, if it is true, the floor slab may not be capable  ;

of carrying the design load.  ;

The NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) did not initially attempt to contact I '

1

the alleger because the allegation was sufficiently clear for the TRT.to __  !

proceed with its investigation. -

l In assessing this allagation, the TRT examined NRC Investigation Report j 81-12 (April 16, 1982), which described the observations of the area in question by an NRC investigator concluded that the floor was rep,andaired the withsenior resident a surface patchinspector. They rather than 8 l

beine reoaired all the way through. Such an ---- - rmeu.v- =:-: _ j~g '

impa.r JNWV,0fMM+wM_-} - = : m = 9 f n= S -

W

• i i

I i The TRT concurred with these findings based on its observations of the floor area in question. Nevertheless, the TRT performed an independent evaluation of the safety significance of a 14-inch diameter hole extending through the floor slab adiacent to pipe support Nc. CC-1-137-700-E63R, as e alleged. This hole is located in the Electrical and Control Building and I

' not in the Safeguards Building, as alleged, and as reported in NRC '

Investigation Report 81-12.

For the worst-case analysis, the TRT assumed that two reinforcing steel bars (rebars) were cut in the process of removing the Hilti bolt. To account for the unknown quality of the material used in the repair, the TRT computed the ultimate moment capacity of the floor slab with and without a 14-inch section of slab removed. These estimated strength capacities were compared to the strength requirements necessary to resist the actual moments resultin.g from the slab design loads. The adequacy of shear capacity was also verified in a similar manner. From these analyses, it was evident to the TRT that the slab in its as-built condi- .

tion is capable of resisting the actual design loads, even though the most ,

~ conservative engineering assumptions concerning cut rebar and a 14-inch -

hole were made.

5. Conclusion and Staff Position: Based on observations made by the TRT, the floor slab does not show any sign of degraded capacity or of poor repair practices. The slab appears continuous and composed of good materials.

An independent TRT analysis of the slab capacity, based on conservative engineering assumptions, confirmed that the structural integrity of the slab would be maintained under its design loads. Accordingly, this alle-gation has no structural safety significance.

u K-Jd F0in85-59 1

. .. m . -. m. 2 ,_. u . ......_'..l__.2___. .

-~

The will be further assessed as a part of the program-matic revi tw -- --

W.*-%goncerning procedures Therefore, addressed of the final acceptability under tmrm this uncontror ed re-pair will be predicated on the satisfactory results of the programmatic review of this subject. Any adjustments to the existing conclusion of 1 this evaluation resulting from the programmatic review will be reported in  !

a supplement to this SSER.

The individual who made the allegation was contacted by the TRT to inform him of the TRT's finding. The alleger expressed his satisf action with respect to the TRT's disposition of his allegation.

6. Actions Required: None.

,T . '. .

8. Attachments: None.

9. Reference Documents:

I

1. Brown & Root Drawing No. BRHL-CC-1-EC-020. I

2. Brown & Root Drawing No. CC-1-137-700-E63R.

3. Gibbs & Hill Calculation No. SAB-103C.

4. NRC Investigation Report No. 81-12, April 16, 1982.

o

. i

10. This statement prepared by:

J. Tapia, TRT Date

. Technical Reviewer.

Reviewed by:

L. Shao, Date Group Leader -

Approved by:

V. Noonan, Date  :

Project Director l l

\

l 4

K-6(

g.

?

._- ~ -, , --

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

,. t y , .. ,

6d 0 0

'- .- S...% . : L.:.L se. .h. : dN: .l A '$:,,s.. .' : s L.. a L .. . ...-;-

t>

3 h,, - . .

I

1. Allegation. Category: Civil and Structural 8, False / Wrong Documents

f

2. Allegation Number: AQC-1, AQC-2, AQC-3, AQC-7, AQC-46 and AQC-51 2

3. Characterization: It is alleged that the following records were falsified  ;

at various times:

i

a. Concrete air entrainment records (AQC-1).

{

} b. Concrete laboratory test records (AQC-2). This allegation consisted 1

of four separate parts: (1) that slump records were falsified, (2)

{

e that laboratory tests (air, slump, and temperature) for concrete i placements of 10 cubic yards or less prior to 1978 were not 1

( performed, (3) that laboratory tests were signed by a Level II inspector not present at the time the tests were performed, and (4) -

i that th6 alleger signed a pressure gauge qualification test that he was not qualified to certify. {

e t

c. Aggregate tests (January 1976). The alleger maintains that he and l his foreman falsified these' tests (AQC-3).

j d. Compression strength tests, at the direction of the general foreman and latioratory manager (AQC-7).

A i e.

j Midpour tests during"the placement of the Unit 1 Containment Butiding basemat on February 21, 1976 (AQC-46). .

f.

Cadweld tensile test records were reported by an inspector without the tests actually being performed during the spring and summer of c

1976 (AQC-51).

4. Assessment of Safety Significance

The implied significance of these 1 I

'. allegations is that, if they are true, the quality of the affected con- '

crete placements may be indeterminate. 1r .,, la 4 %

j The NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) does not know the identity cf the

- individuals who made allegations AQC-1, -AQC-2,.and AQC-M.5 The TRT did ,

A QC-f not initially attempt to contact the individual who made' allegations AQC-3, AQC-7, and AQ6-51 because the allegations were -sufficiently clear to allow g g the TRT to proceed with its investigation.

~6tIrnq 4M. a. In assessing this allegation (AQC-1), the TRT reviewed documents g  !

~.

Tf x/f[ gy/ contained in Brown & Root (B&R) Deficiency and Disposition Report D g i

(DDR) No C-488 R1, R. W. Hunt Company QA Report HCP 21697 on concrete ':

1. 2/a.$ IR 77-02. acceptance test results and the results of the Region IV investiga-K -2 tion of this allegation (inspection report 77-02). The records showed that on January 20,1977, a 3.9 percent air content value was D f

% k w n. 3/s2, recorded in the concrete acceptance test report (HCP 21697) as 4.3 ~ )

percent by a Level I inspector. The incident was reported to R.W.

3yf;fn,n7 g,g/ Hunt management by a co-worker. R. W. Hunt then, issued a DDR  %

,h h b [/#N identifying the placement of out-of-specification concrete and

),f(,,f,. yg fg he Level corrected T the airwas I inspector entrainment subsequently value in the for fired acceptance his action. test report. Q i f NfW h hw -b iMh A w aww e l44C-94 "Y*s AE-l ac g, w um e p gn Frt'lucwil $bre Teler n u %.K qu gg ga n , q g UY' D hrk 6 Td % a m e, w

• • ?..

out..W,.w,, .A k.

1

_; .m. ..E

x . , , , , m. , vn. ; yo -

o..-- . .

m w . m n x Um:_s.,.6 m _ w w a  :._ m._ - .

J ,

r 1  : <

j l 1 To assess the possible safety significance of the falsification, the

! TRT examined the compressive strength test results for the concrete i placement in question (105-7785-001) and found that the results ranged from 4905 psi.through 5414 psi, and were well above the design d

1 specification strength of 4000 psi. The out-of-specification air i I

content had little effect, if any, on the strength of the concrete '

placed.

m b. (1) The TRT cannot determine if slump test results were or were not 3 falsified based on an examination of test w ords (AQC-2). To assess whether the records, if falsified, coutd have adversely affectied the strength of the concrete, the TRT reviewed the l t results of compression tests performed on the concrete placed q between April 11 and 13, 1978. (These dates correspond to the

? dates of the alleged falsification.) The TRT found the compressive strength to be consistent with that of concrete y placed before and after the dates and within the specification.

i *

'! (2) The allegation that laboratory tests (air, slump, and tempera-

.l ture) were not performed on placements of concrete 10 cubic yards or smaller was investigated by the NRC Region IV staff (IE jl Inspection Report 78-07). This allegation was made in April i 1978. The NRC Region IV staff reviewed log books that were the d

• personal property of a number of laboratory personnel, but could not substantiate the allegation even though the alleger stated that such a review would be " revealing." The TRT reviewed all

!j, the concrete pour packages for the Pipe Tunnel, the Condensate j Storage Tank and the Service Water Intake Structure, which are j classified as safety related, to determine if any of the concrete placements were 10 cubic yards or less. The TRT identified eight concrete placements (111-1794-003,

111-1797-009, 111-1797-010, 111-1802-001, 111-9810-001, f 035-9796-001', 035-9705-002, and 035-9796-003) that were placed 1 prior to 1978 and that were 10 cubic yards or less. The dates of these placements were between August 1976 and February 1977.

The eight concrete pqur packages contained records showing field , ,

l and laboratory tests,results, but there was no way of i

, determining whether khe field tests were actually performed.  !

j However, for each of *the above placements, concrete cylinders  ;

j were also made anB te!sted; the, re'sults demonstrated adequate  !' ' ,

1 strength. Prior to M78, concrete placements in the Containment

]; Structure, Fuel Hand 1'jng Building, Auxiliary Building and Safeguards Building v;re generally for structural elements such i l l

1* as walls, slabs, and youndations. The placements for these 1 types of elements wou'd generally be 50 yd' or larger. To '

identify placements of,10 yd' or less the TRT identified non-l conformance reports cMeerning repair work (voids, honeycomb, j 1 etc.) to walls, slabs,*.etc. because placements for repair work j would generally be lesa than 10 yd'. The TRT identified four -

concrete placements which needed concrete. repair, but were repaired by means of "Ery pack" or " grout." The TRT interviewed four former R. W. Hunt' employees who were involved in concrete testing activities at Comanche Peak during the time period in question. Th+se four e~mployees were employed on site with y *

• $h KA

_e-*=r-__--s__~n

- .y+--=- ---- --- ----- - - - - - - - - - -

p --

a, - - , ;

r.s#,,. e n.c y he a '> d M 3..1<.2.b.all. M ' - d i d . u G d h a,,,,b . M .,s. . .w 2 u ;,J h

anot$eremployer. Three of them were working in the concrete testing laboratory. All four stated that they did not  !

. participate in or observe any falsification and/or failure to ,1

[ perform required concrete tests. +

(3) The allegation that a Level II inspector signed reports for tests performed on September 3 and 4, 1977, that he could have i

had no knowledge of was also reviewed by NRC Region IV personnel i

(IE Inspection Report 78-07). The alleger stated he had obtained this information from ancther individual who thought the falsification occurred in December 1977. The Region IV l inspectors reviewed the daily payroll records of all laboratory personnel for the first 10 days of September and all of December 1977. The Level II inspector was present every day in September, but was absent December 4, 5, 11 and 18 through 31. ,

The Region IV staff could find no reports validated by the Level  ! '

II inspector for the days alleged. The TRT reviewed the Region  !

! IV inspection report and concurred with the approach taken and

( the results of the investigation. In addition to reviewing the ,

l Region IV inspection report, the TRT examined strength test  !

I results for the concrete placed during the period stated in the  ! i allegation and found them to be above the minimum required '

design strength.

-(4) The allegation that the alleger signed a pressure certification ,

I test that he was not qualified to certify (on August 15,1977)  !

was investigated by NRC Region IV personnel (IE Inspection -

Report 78-07). Through an interview with Brown & Root  :

calibration facility personnel, the NRC Region IV investigator learned that the pressure gauge was calibrated by Brown & Root  : ,

j personnel in accordance with their procedures. The calibration record was an R. W. Hunt form signed by the alleger who observed l the test in accordance with the R. W. Hunt procedure. Prior to the Region IV investigation, B&R issued a DDR (February 17, 1978) that described this situation as a pre-existing and continuing problem in general, and proposed corrective action.

The NRC Region IV staff concluded that while the allegation was substantiated, there were no safety consequen'ces since the calibration was performed by a qualified individual in accordance with prescribed procedures. The TRT reviewed the

• Region IV inspection report, and concurred with the approach ,

taken and the results of the investigation.

1- c. The allegation (AQC-3) was first evaluated by the NRC Region IV staff l (IE Inspection Report 79-09). The alleger, a former R. W. Hunt employee, stated that the falsification by him and his " foreman" occurred during the first 3 or 4 weeks of his employment, beginning January 19, 1976. The NRC Region IV staff reviewed the pre-qualification tests performed by Texas Industries, the aggregate supplier, on the material supplied to the site between January and l May 1976 and also examined the results of in-process concrete

testing. Both sets of results complied with the specification' l requirements. The NRC Region IV staff also determined through discussions with a TUEC representative that the " foreman" was a Level K-4 i

i

[= . . _ _ . . ........ . - ., . . . - -- --L---- - - - - - - - 1

w . ,

ww m.m .am-n.s.wyumx vgm~ n.. .

z.=:- . . __u:.x 2

1 II inspector in charge of the work. The NRC Region IV staff

! concluded that any falsification of test results on the part of the i alleger would not have had a significant adverse impact on the quality of the concrete. The testing performed by Texas Industries i was for the purpose of material qualification, whereas the tests

performed by R. W. Hunt Company were to monitor the material for any 5 deviation from the specification and to assure concrete of uniform j workability and strength. The tests performed to verify concrete workability and strength were the test for slump and the cylinder test for compressive strength. The Texas Industries tests and the

( tests on fresh concrete indicated that the aggregate was satisfactory S for its intended purpose.

In addition to reviewing the Region IV report, the TRT examined the i y

results of slump and compressive strength tests for the period in i

which the falsification was alleged to have occurred. The test results were within specified limits and were consistent with concrete produced before and after this period.

i

d. The 2 individuals making the. allegation (AQC-7) and 13 other

individuals were questioned by Region IV personnel between April 5, 1979 and May 7, 1979, regarding the allegation (IE Inspection Report 79-09). One of the allegers denied the allegation, stating he was misquoted in the newspaper. Another stated that he did not falsify

' concrete records himself but knew of other inspectors who had. One j of the other 13 individuals interviewed stated he thought that

{' falsification occurred, but did not know when or by whom. In addition, the NRC Region IV staff examined the test result statistics of the concrete produced prior to and during the period of the alleged falsification and did not find any apparent variation in the 4

uniformity of the concrete. The NRC Region IV staff concluded that

the allegation could not be substantiated. The TRT staff reviewed slump and air entrainment test results of concrete placed during the period the remaining alleger was employed (January 1976 to February 1977) and did not find any apparent variation in the uniformity of the parameters for fresh concrete placed during this period.

However, since air content and slump tests have been alleged to be falsified, the TRT believes that additional action is required by TUEC to confirm that the results of the strength tests are representative of the~ strength of the concrete placed.

4 mias.Med i e. According to an artticle that appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram

! (April 1979), three(R. W. Hunt Company concrete inspectors alleged j- -

that during the placement of 6600 cubic yards of concrete for the Unit 1 Containment Building basemat on February 21, 1976, some concrete was not tested, but instead the results were written in as averages (AQC-46). Tne concrete specification in force at this time 1

required that slump, air content, temperature, and cylinders be taken i

every 100 cubic yards. The TRT reviewed concrete pour package j (101-2805-001) for this placement and found 67. sets of test cylinders j with the associated results of slump, air content, and temperature as

per the specification. However, the TRT cannot determine from a i review of these records whether the field tests were actually e 1 performed. Since the results of compression tests performed on the '

( K-1 . 1 1 }

). - . . _ - - - -

i

q-

• 4 1

.ne w pj g <

,r+y , ._ . . .4 ._

-. s

. - i i

concrete cylinders would be the final measure of its acceptability, the TRT reviewed these results and found them to be acceptable and

]1 within the specification. ,

1

f. The TRT reviewed the entire (440) Cadweld tensile test results for 1976 and identified 30 tests that were performed by the inspector in question (AQC-51). Twenty-eight of these tests were performed on one 1 j single day (October 13,1976), while the other two tests were '

j perfomed on two different days (July 21, 1976 and August 20,1976).

s The TRT cannot detemine whether or not all of the 30 tests in d question were performed or if results were falsified and did not specifically look into the falsification issue. The remaining 410

~

q tests performed by other inspectors all met the tensile strength

" requirements. The 30 Cadwelds tested were removed from the first ij layer of the exterior wall of the Unit 1 Containment Building at the 832-foot, 6-inch elevation. The TRT reviewed tensile test results of i other Cadwelds performed by the individuals who made the Cadwelds in

, question. -The results were found to be satisfactory. The Cadweld rejection rate for the 21 Cadwelders who made the 440 Cadwelds ranged from zero percent to four percent, with one at six percent.

1 The fact that the allegations concerning the falsification of an air entrainment' test and the certification of the pressure gauge test were substantiated indicates a partial breakdown in the QA/QC program in these

. areas

• 1 P l

5. Conclusions and Staff Position: The allegation (AQC-1) that a concrete air entrainment record was falsified is true. Even so, the compressive strength of the concrete in question was within specifications. ,

l The allegation (AQC-2) that slump tests on April 11 and 13, 1978, were

, performed incorrectly and that the results were falsified could well be o

true and cannot be refuted. The TRT examined the compressive strength test results of the concrete in question and found that they were within specifications.

The allegation (AQC-2) that laboratory tests for small placements were falsified was found to have no structural safety significance since in addition to the recorded laboratory tests, the validity of which was questioned, cylinder strength tests were also performed to demonstrate adequate strength. In addition, in interviews with the TRT, former -

l employees of the R. W. Hunt Co., who worked during the time period cited 4 .

in the allegations, denied the validity of the allegation. Furthermore,

1. the limited number of concrete placements of less than 10 cubic yards, t

' even if improperly tested, would have little structural safety significance.

,' The allegation (AQC-2) that an inspector signed test results for which he could have had no knowledge could not be substantiated because no reports could be found by the inspector for the days alleged. Even if the 4 allegation wis true, test results showed the strength of the concrete j

placed during the period of the allegation to be above the minimum '

required strength.

J o

le

'l h

K 9

]h NTRT J

ll W - % 84is  % %4*$

4 t-fI i%M L ,s.(*mMad y , % 4c A '. M wWAn-3

r. . . , ,

made u

lL- _ _ _ _ _ .

_ = = . ~ . - - - . ~ . - . ~ . - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - -

2

. w c.

+ w

,a~ .w g e~ w. .-

w.=

i i --

l -

I i e

The allegation (AQC-2) that the alleger signed a pressure gauge test which he was not qualified to certify was found to have no structural safsty significance since the alleger did not actually perform the calibration. ,

The TRT cannot determine the validity of the allegation (ACQ-3) that con- i crete aggregate tests were falsified. Nevertheless, the concrete placed during the period cited in the allegation was consistent with that of con-crete placed before and after this period.

The validity of the allegation (AQC-46) that midpour tests were falsified during the placement of the Unit 1 Containment Building basemat cannot be determined. The results of compression tests indicate that the concrete placed was of high quality, i The TRT cannot determine the validity of' the allegation (AQC-51) that Cadweld tensile test results were falsified. If this falsification did indeed occur, the structural integrity of the exterior wall of the Unit 1 Containment Building has not been violated because (1) the tensile ,

strength of other Cadweld test specimens performed by the 21 Cadwelders were found to be satisf actory, (2) the Cadweld rejection rate for each Cadwelder is at an acceptable level, (3) and the containment structure met all the criteria for displacement and cracking control as well as structural rebound when subjected to 115 percent of design pressure, as stated in CPDA-31, 792, " Final Report on Structural Integrity Test for Unit.1 Concrete Containment Structure."

Accordingly, the above allegations have no structural safety significance.

However, the allegations resolved on the basis of acceptable concrete strength test results may need to be further assessed pending the resolution of allegation AQC-7. Also, the results of these evaluations pertaining to QC inspection procedures will be further assessed as a part of the overall programmatic review concerning procedures addressed under QA/QC Category 3 " Records." Therefore, the final acceptability of these evaluations will be predicated on the satisfactory results of the programmatic review and the satisfactory resolution of allegation AQC-7.

Any adjustments to the existing cor.clusions of these evaluations will be reported in a supplement to this $5ER.

The allegation (AQC-7) that compressive strength test results were falsified cannot be closed.at this time. The TRT agrees with the Region IV staff that the uniformity of the fresh concrete placed during this period suggests that there was no serious problem with the hardened concrete and, therefore, no serious safety problem. However, this

' conclusion is based on air content, slump, and strength tests, all of which have been alleged to be falsified. The issues regarding air content and slump, as well as other allegations discussed above, were resolved on  ;

the basis of the concrete strength test results. Due to the importance of l the concrete strength test results, the TRT concludes that additional action by TUEC is necessary to provide confirmatory evidence that the reported concrete strength test results are indeed representative of the strength of the concrete placed in the Category I structures.

t K Ge j

If .

.,-.-r-. .,7 m . y - -- ; . .. y- , ~r-~"r- r"9 ~ ~ ~ *** - ' T ~7- ~M~"O

. . m u. . ~ ._ . _w . .__._m..___. _

l .

Di

6. Actions Required: TUEC shall determine areas where safety-related concrete was placed betweer. January 1976 and February 1977, and provide a program to assure acceptable concrete strength. The program shall include tests such as the use of random Schmidt hammer tests on the concrete in

' areas.where safety is critical. The program shall include a comparison of the results with the results of tests performed on concrete of the same design strength in areas where the strength of the concrete is not questioned, to determine if any significant variance in strength occurs.

TUEC shall submit the program for performing these tests to the NRC for review and approval prior to performing the tests.

h

8. Attachments: None.

9.

References:

1. Brown & Root DDR C-488 R1. .

2. Brown & Root QA Report HCP 21697.

3. IE Inspection Report 78-07. i

4. Concrete testing data management records for Mix Design 133.  !

5. IE Insp,ection Report 79-09.

6. Concrete testing data management records for January 1976.

7. IE Inspection Report 79-09. , i

8. . Concrete testing dati management records for January 1976 to February 1977. j

9. Concrete pour package 101-2805-001.

10. Concrete pour packages 111-1794-003, 111-1797-009, 111-1797-010, 111-1802-001, 111-9810-001, 035-9796-001, 035-9796-002, and 035-9796-003.

11. 440 Cadweld tensile test reports.

12. Cadweld inspection reports for 1976.

13. Cadwelders splice log book.

14. Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-SS-11.

15. Brown & Root as-built Cadweld drawing BR 10502 QA.

10. This statement prepared by:

T. Langowski, TRT Date

- Technical Reviewer Reviewed by:

L. Shao, Date Group Leader Approved by: ,

V. Noonan, Date  !

I Project' Director ,

e K-fr9 f.gg.,w ;.j. ..:

-.c . ..

w - .

.l

. f . -.

I

1. Allegation Category: Civil and Structural 9, QC Inspector Training

2. Allegation Number: AQC-9

3. Characterization: It is alleged by two former R. W. Hunt Company employees that (a) after a March 1977, NRC investigation, closed book recertification tests of R. W. Hunt inspectors were done "open book" and that (b) tests were given with the answers provided.

~

4. Assessment of Safety Significance: The implied safety significance of these allegations is that, if they are true, the validity of test results by these inspectors could be questionable.

The NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) did not initially attempt to contact the two allegers because the TRT was able, with some initial investigation, to clarify the allegations sufficiently to proceed with its evaluation. .

The allegation about the recertification tests refers to recertification testing that was required because a Region IV investigation in 1977 (inspection report 50-445/77-02) questioned the most recent certification of R. W. Hunt Level I and II inspectors. The NRC Region IV staff found that R. W. Hunt did not comply with the minimum 2 year experience requirement for qualification as a Level I concrete inspector, as required by the ASME Code to which they were committed by the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR). The R. W. Hunt Skills Training Certification manual stated that " Experience requirements may be reduced if the individual can demonstrate capability in a given job through previous i performance or satisfactory completion of an examination and orientation training." Also, the Region IV staff found that the " Certification of Qualifications," which was issued to each Level I and II inspector did not include the activity the inspector was qualified to perform or the basis used for certification, as was required. Each candidate for certification was required to demonstrate proficiency in performing specific practical tests on one or more samples approved by the Level III examiner. The Region IV staff found that R. W. Hunt had permitted a Level I inspector to perform concrete cylinder compression tests and aggregate sieve calysis without evidence of demonstrated proficiency and approval in accordance with the above requirements.

As a result of this investigation, Brown & Root (B&R) audited R. W. Hunt

training and certification activities and required each inspector to be i recertified by attending specific training sessions and by c1csed book testing. The work performed by the personnel qualified under the previous provisions was reviewed by B&R QA personnel and found to be within the specification requirements. In addition B&R assigned a QC civil engineer i

to work full-time with R. W. Hunt on site to ensure full compliance with

( .project requirements.

Between April 3,1979, and May 7,1979, NRC Region IV inspectors inter-viewed 15 individuals associated with concrete testing activities regard-ing the allegation concerning the recertificatieri tests (inspection '

report 50-445/79-09), including the 2 who had originally made the newspaper allegations (April 1979). The alleger who stated in the newspaper article f

that after the NRCyinvestigation of March 1977, th -

F0lA i N9

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

. - . u. a wa.a x-aa a. w .. Ex  : a=a. -

i i l.

i inspectors.to test cylinders was "open-book" did not mention open-book testing when interviewed by the Region IV inspectors. He stated that he j

had failed a Level I soils test, that he was subsequently given answers

(orally) by the laboratory manager, and then repeated the soils test using

. the notes he had taken. He also stated that to obtain his recertification

, (after March 1977) he needed only to have a supervisor sign the

~.

I recertification form.

~

When interviewed by Region IV, the other individual who alleged in the newspaper that he had been given answers to tests reaffirmed his allegation, i To determine if the individual was referring to the recertification tests or to tests he had taken prior to March 1977 to obtain his initial certi-fication, the TRT reviewed his employment records. The TRT found that this

! individual was not empicyed by R. W. Hunt at the time the March 1977 i recertification tests were given. His allegation therefore would be j referring to tests he took prior to March 1977 to obtain his initial certification. Two other individuals who were questioned by the Region IV staff between April 3,1979 and May 7,1979 generally supported the allegations. Again, to determine which tests these individuals were referring to, the TRT reviewed their employment records and the results of the Region IV interviews. Onei individual states that the recertification tests were administered properly; the other was not employed by R. W. Hunt Co.'at the t'ime the recertification tests were given. Therefore, these two individuals would be referring to tests they had taken prior to March 1977, their initial certification tests. These three Individual's certi-fications were among those questioned by the 1977 Region IV investigation (inspection report 77-01) and their work had been audited and fcund

, acceptable. .

In summary, the al' legation that recertification tests were administered "open-book" was supported only by the individual making the allegation.

The allegation that test answers were given for tests taken prior to March 1977 was supported by three individuals. Eleven other individuals who were questioned did not support the allegat%ns.

The TRT reviewed the personnel file of the individual who made the allega-tion concerning the open book recertification tests and learned that he was employed from August 16, 1976, to June 28, 1973. Therefore, he was among those inspectors whose previous work had been reviewed and found acceptable. The TRT also found copies of tests t ken by the individual for recertification in concrete and soil inspections. The TRT reviewed the test the individual had taken relating to concrete cylin_ der tests and

could not determine whether the test had been administered properly. The i

TRT also examined test result statistics for concrete placed from 1975 to 1978, and found that the concrete placed was of uniform quality and strength and that there was no apparent variance in the test results.

Approximately 35 different inspectors were involved in concrete testing between 1975 and 1978; more than 7 inspectors conducted concrete com-pression tests on a rotating basis during this period.

4 1 5. Conclusion and Staff Position: The allegation thart answers to tests were given prior to March 1977 cannot be refuted. An NRC Region IV investi- l gation (Inspection Report IR 77-02) questioned the qualifications of the  !

j R. W. Hunt inspectors. The work performed by the R. W. Hunt inspectors W

K-]U  ;

4 g \

l

- i

_ .._ _ ? .. _ _ .. - -.-.--- - -... ,n - - - - - . . . .

yu .,

.2 ~ ~ n w.. .a  : .L sy v * ..* & G .u L_,.. . _ . .a...a., . , .

I l 5'

certified prior to March 1977 was reviewed by B&R and was found to be within specifications, a fact subsequently reported to NRC Region IV [  !

staff. Therefore, the TRT concludes that this allegation has no structural safety significance.

l

. The allegation that the recertification tests for concrete cylinder

, testing were given "open book" alho cannot be substantiated. This

allegation was not supported by any of the other individuals questioned, i which suggests it was an isolated occurrence. The work performed by this j individual prior to March 1977 was audited and found to be satisfactory,

which would indicate the individual possessed the knowledge required to i properly perform the required testing. In addition, the test results for concrete placed, including the concrete compression tests, were con- ,

a tributed to by many inspectors whose qualifications were acceptable.  !

, These test results showed the concrete was of uniform quality and ,.

strength. Based on the fact that the. inspector's work had previously been --

l reviewed and found to be acceptable, and that a number of inspectors l' contributed to the test results, which showed the concrete to be of  !

uniform quality, the TRT concludes that this issue has no structural l safety significance. ,

The results of these evaluations will be further assessed as a part of the ..

overall programmatic review concerning inspector qualifications addressed  !

under QA/QC Category 4, " Training and Qualification of Personnel." There-  ;

fore,- the final acceptabil'ity of these evaluations will be predicated on the satisfactory results of the programmatic review of this subject. Any adjustments to the existing conclusion of this evaluation resulting from

'j the programmatic review will be reported in a supplement to this SSER.

• j ,

,; i f

~

The TRT contacted one of the allegers who made one of the allegations

. discussed above. He declined to meet with the TRT. He will be informed ,

by letter of the TRT's findings. l l

6. Actions Required: None.

8. Attachments: None.

9. Reference Documents: .

{

1. IE Inspection Report 50-445/79-09; 50-446/79-09. y

2. IE Inspection Report 50-445/77-02; 50-446/77-02. 'i' j

3. Concrete testing data management reports 1975 to 1978. .

e i

h #:

/'

, - 78

K-3C 9

~ - . .

,.9

- e s . . . .

wa n > -

. ..: w ..u ., cau.: ,e .u .az w u-.=~ ..;._w..c

...a.:.:a . :.w.... .

. . ~ . -- -

. . , , i

10. This statement prepared by:

T. Langowski, TRT Date i Technical Reyfewer 1 6

i Reviewed by :

L. Shao Date Group Leader Approved by:

V. Noonan, p,g, Project Director e

0 0

e

• 6 a

I e

e i

K-)s l

? I

?

I _

'I .W ?, rm, , ,, ' ' ' ** -~~e w% ..y_ , _

• _<w- . ,

_, _, _m , - -

_..__ .. _ m_ ._

_ .2.2 mbu, mui c. u.,i U_. +

a l.5' .

~

I  !

s1 .

Allegation. category: Civil and Structural 10, Improper Testing 1.

.. /

l 2. Allegation Number: AQC-4, AQC-5, AQC-6, AQC-8, AQC-11 and AQC-48 i 3. Characterization: It is alleged that the following violation of j

testing procedures occurred:

l a. Equipment required for aggregate testing was sitting unused

! on laboratory shelves (AQC-4).

b. Shortcuts were taken on tests involving grading of aggregate

, (AQC-5).

c. During the pipcing of a 6600-cubic-yard section of the basemat for Unit 1, some concrete was placed without the required testing (AQC-6). ,

d. Concrete cylinder compression tests were run at a faster loading

]q rate than permitted by NRC regulations (AQC-8).

'1

e. Concrete test cylinders with adequate strength were used to represent other placements (AQC-11).

1

- f. Concrete test cylinders in the Hunt Laboratory moist room were i allowed to dry (AQC-48).

Allegations AQC-4, AQC-5, and AQC-8 were investigated by NRC Region IV and documented in inspection report 79-09, which was reviewed by the NRC

. Technical Review Team (TRT) as a step in its own assessment of the l allegations.

I 4. Assessment of Safety Stanificance: The implied safety significance of l these allegations is that, if they are true, the quality of the affected concrete may be indeterminate.

The allegations were judged as having sufficient clarity for technical i resolution without initial contact between the TRT and the alleger.

a. The test equipment that allegedly remained unused at the project laboratory was for the test for Potential Reactivity of Aggregates i

(Chemical Method), Anierican Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

C 289. Test Laboratory Manual TLM-004 (CP-QP-0.5), which was in

! effect during most of the construction period, required that the test

! be run once for each 4000 tons of aggregate. The TRT inspected

" Folder 1 - Potential Reactivity, 4000 Ton Test" and learned that i between May 6,1975, and July 12, 1978, there were 60 tests for potential reactivity. The TRT also interviewed the laboratory tech-

, nician who performed most of the tests. This period covers the bulk 3

of heavy construction and the entire employment period of the alleger.

The testing rate during this period exceeded one test per 4000 tons of coarse aggregate. Thus, testing was at a higher rate than required a by the testing requirements. -

1 4 - F0lA-85-59 i, l K-?<

m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Filo

w .. . #,y . , .

, # #,Q&*&ms

_. .Q ' s. " ; . jQQj.,\ 1. %5 + Q) ,3' ,yLyg _QQ; ,y, I .

l

• l

- l g

1 b. The shortcut alleged is that TUEC used a hot plate for drying

} aggregate in its sieve analyses of coarse aggregate rather than an  !'

! oven, as specified in test method ASTM C-136. Note.4 of that method l l contains the following information:

3  !

Samples may be dried at the higher temperatures associated with I

the use of hot plates without affecting results, provided steam escapes without generating pressures sufficient to fracture the j particles, and temperatures are not so great as to cause 4

chemical breakdown of the aggregate.

j The alleged shortcut, then, is permitted by the provision just cited.

c. The TRT inspected all batch tickets and test records for the 1 6600-cubic yard basemat placement and physically inspected those portions of the mat still accessible. A placement that size required l 66 sets of test cylinders, with associated data on fresh concrete.

, There were-67 sets of records in the file, all of which showed

., compliance with specifications. While little of the placement was i

available for inspection, that portion that could be seen was in i excellent condition. The implied aspect of falsification is dealt j with in Civil and Structural Category 8.

t j d. Cylinder strength testing must be done in accordance with " Method for  !

Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens," ASTM C-39. l That method permits any rate of loading during the first half of the l loading range, but restricts the rate of loading at fracture to the -

range of 20 to 50 psi per second. A higher rate of loading may  !

I produce a higher indicated strength. The definitive work on l

investigating the effect of rate of loading on indicated strength .

I (Watstein, D., "Effect of Straining Rate on the Compressive Strength 3 and Elastic Properties of Concrete," Proceedings, American Concrete i Institute, Vol. 49, 1953, p. 729) demonstrated a significant increase in indicated strength for very high dynamic rates of loading.

However, a rate 100 times that specified produces an indicated

, increase in strength of only 10 percent. The testing machine used to l break cylinders on the Comanche Peak project, a Forney Model CAC-50-DR, if run at maximum capacity, could achieve a testing rate i no greater than 20 times the specified rate. This rate could produce I ar apparent increase in strength of about 6.5 percent. For 4,000 psi  !

j concrete the apparent increase would be about 250 psi. In a detailed j check by the TRT of several placement packages, and a pot check of ,

, others, the 4000 psi concrete averaged more than 5000 psi, and

. individual results exceeded 4500 psi. Thus, if some tests were

conducted at too high a loading rate, no results were changed from failing to passing. If there were tests within 6.5 percent of the design strength not detected by the TRT, the strength could be

, expected to gain 6.5 percent within a few weeks, so that the design j strength would be attained long before the structure .was ,put into j

service.

! e. The TRT investigated the number of cylinders available for switching to other placements. The alleger stated that the switch occurred after "a good sample was found." By the time the 28-day tests were 1

K- W l 1

p e.

+ ,

. , m r w . .a,w , y;,Lu_

.. x ,, m u n_ w%w, w .

o.m - . .. , . . . , - :. .

r .

completed' at most two extra cylinders remained for which the test

, l results could be switched to the testing data for other placements.

Unless this was a widespread practice, its significance would be *

! small because of the relatively few cylinders available. The

! allegation does, however, raise a question as to the effectiveness of quality control in the laboratory.

j

f. To investigate the allegation that concrete cylinders in the  !'

laboratory moist room were allowed to dry, the TRT examined the current procedure for documenting noist room conditions and l interviewed a Level II inspector who was present throughout the  :

+ period when the Irboratory was operated by the R. W. Hunt Company. i l At present there is a thermometer which provides a permanent j temperature record. While there is no quantitative measurement of humidity, there are daily visual observations of the presence or '

absence of fog in the room. These observations are also a part of ,

the record.

l During the R. W. Hunt operation, temperatures were recorded, but ,

i there apparently was no documentation of humidity. Batch plant  !

j inspectors were required to note the condition of the moist room, but i

there is no record of their observations. There is a history of  !

breakdowns in the water supply to the laboratory, and a shutdown as I

, long as 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> has been documented. With the door to the moist room i -closed, there would be a negligible drop in humidity during such a i period. As long as the relative humidity remains above 90 percent, concrete curing conditions are favorable. It is pertinent to note l

that any drying that might occur would produce conservative results

in that agasured strengths would be lower than actual strengths.

l 5. Conclusion and Staff positionsr The TRT concludes that these allegations .

[

have no impact on structural safety.

a. All required tests for ASTM C-289 were performed. l

b. The alleged shortcut in carrying out aggregate grading tests is

, permitted by the provisions of the specified test method in ASTM y C-136.

1

. c. All required testing-was carried out in connection with the '

)

6600-cubic yard basemat placement.

6 d. Although this allegation may have been true, the fastest possible '

j- loading of test cylinders would have increased the indicated strengths by no more than 6.5 percent and would have had no effect on the acceptability of the concrete.

e. The alleged substitution of test cylinders is unlikely to have i affected a sufficient number of cylinders to have had a material l effect on the overall test results. ,

Although the allegation that the laboratory failed to maintain the

~

f.

water supply at all times may be true in that there were brief 1

49 K-ftr t _ _ _. _ _ __

, . . _. a-v ~ Gw.a .. ._ . ._ a ,. , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _

l

• shutoffs of water to the moist room humidifiers, these periodic breakdowns would result in conservative strength results on concrete

• cylinders.

1" Accordingly, these allegations have no structunal safety significance.

However, the effectiveness of quality control in the laboratory will be j further assessed as part of the overall programmatic review concerning j procedures addressed under QA/QC Category 6 "QC Inspection." Therefore, l the final acceptability of this evaluation will be predicated on the

! satisfactory results of the programmatic review of this subject. Any adjustments to the existing conclusion of this evaluation resulting from j the programmatic review will be reported in a supplement to this SSER.

The allecer ' r 211-tim w-4 and AQC-48 cannot be3CAted. !!E5 j =-'-# '"i

^^^

l The TRT sent rUa letter ^ '

^ ^ ^ G "" F '

to the aneger of AQC-II expiaining its dispositfok

~

gg IpdM% 6. Actions Recuired: None. e Y. tu

' t$ S-M-27,

. 2 fa.,c.,

?R 7f-aV

[gc -(, 8. Attachments: None.

jbthisq 9. Reference Documents:

' tl 5-Z'l l 1. Test Lab Manual Tl.M-004 (CP-QP-0.5).

l7

[.9. Sl.e 2. Folder 1 - Potential Reactivity 4000-Ton Test.

SRv 7T-09 } 3.

i. t Concrete Placement Package 101-2805-001 1-21-76.

LAQ.C-6 4. watstein, D., "Effect of Straining Rate on the Compressive Strength

and Elastic Properties of Concrete," Proceedinos, American Concrete d 5t/ mony Institute. Vol. 49, 1953, p. 729.

flf) 5-It/-fk 5. ASTM C-39, Compressiv~e Strength of. Cylindrical Concrete Specimens.

3g

{4. 2.4,. ,c 6. ASTM C-136 Steve Analygis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.

iCR 79-01 . ASTM C-289, Potential Reactivity of Aggregates (Chemical -

9 Method).

l l ikgafrans A GC-:i", A GC G, o~/ A GC-3 were p cdo ir< " M ' W 0 ONCI!' /** tdtK/t fitr 0//q pff g)(yf=pgsf jgfp,,g g , TNf 7f'T 1

] Ild1 b* M IA

• n'0 /effrbsine *ffreit (ges,(r-{f.

f0 i! x-71 l1 H

!)i t

- a

. ,,.-.y- ,.

4

7.n. , yg - ,. = a .,

-w- ,, --,1 1. w3...;. _2 m , . . m _

a . m_. ;. . .

s. '

10. This statement prepared by:  !

l R. Philleo, TRT Date  !

Technical Reviewer ,

I l

- Reviewed by:

! L. Shao. Date

! Group Leader i i

, Approved by:

} V. Noonan, Date .

Project Director i b

e 6

s I*

i I

. e 4

1 i

i e

I i .

I i K-X i

i

. m

-. .. --- . - , a.w u . " " " ' "

\

h a

t l

y - 1 o

i 1.

l' Allegation Category: Civil and Structural 11, Seismic Design / Construction

2. Allegation Number: AC-41 I

3. Characterization: It is alleged that there was poor workmanship regarding the use of elastic joint filler material ("rotofoam") as a temporary spacer during construction to maintain the required air space between

. seismic Category I structures could be questioned.

4.

Assessment of Safety Sionificance: The implied safety significance of this allegation is that, if the use and removal of elastic joint filler material is not proper, the validity of the seismic analysis results for seismic Category I structures could be questioned.

This allegation was received anonymously; therefore, the TRT could not contact the alleger about its evaluation of AC-41.

TUEC informed NRC Region IV on November 23, 1977, of this allegation, which TUEC received anonymously in a telephone call on November 22, 1977.

A Region IV inspector reviewed the allegation during an inspection con-ducted between November 28 and December 2,1977, and concluded, based on the information available to him at the time, that all temporary rotofoam had been removed from the seismic gap between Category I structures. The matter was left open pending a Region IV review of the Brown & Root (B&R)

QA/QC inspection and documentation program, which was being initiated to assuremaintained.

being that the required seismic gap between Category I structures was truction to maintainRotofoam this gap.wasOnce used as a temporary spacer during cons-the concrete hardened, the rotofoam was removed to eliminate any loed transfer or dynamic interaction between buildings. If the relative motion between buildings was small and the

! presence of rotofoam was considered in the dynamic analysis of the build-ing, leaving the rotofoam in place may not have had a significant impact on the dynamic performance of the buildings. .

During an inspection between January 3 and 13,1978, the Region IV inspector reviewed B&R procedura CP-QCI-2.4-9, " Inspection of Elastic  !

Joint Filler Material Removal," Revision 1 (December 12, 1977), and B&R inspection reports for December 15, 1977 further questions regarding this matter. and January 3,1978, and had no The NRC Technical Review T'eam clarification of the concerns e(TRT) attempted to obtain a further xpressed by the alleger; however, neither TUEC nor the Region IV office had records of the alleger's telephone conversation other than what is stated above. The TRT determined, 3 however, that prior to the time the allegation was made there was a i misunderstanding as part of the finalasconstruction.

to whether or not the rotofoam should remain in place A letter from Gibbs & Hill (G&H) of  ;

September 6,1977 (GTT-1543), indicated that construction was improperly proceeding on the basis that the rotofoam could be left in place. The [,

letter further stated that this assumption was not in accordance with the facility design drawings and design concept and that expansion joints l_

above grade should consist of a clear gap between butidings, i.e., free of rotofoam.

f, As noted in the G&H letter, it was intended that the rotofoam be left in place below grade. Since construction had proceeded above g 5 "n br 4M h,

6'".

n y=' wn '

1. g d % ;4 o

j K-)s Ub e .

[

, ,,,m -

-. . n.w. ,.=. w _ -. u .x. 2 . a e w. x  :

~l 4 .

'i ,

grade, TUEC instructed B&R, in a letter of October 7, 1977 (TUS-5012), to remove the rotofoam. As noted, B&R procedure CP-QCI-2.4-9 was also imple-mented to verify removal of the rotofoam. Based on discussions with TUEC and G&H engineers, the TRT found that the rotofoam was to be left in place

• j for the expansion joints above grade between the Safeguards Building and i the Reactor Building, l

.j If properly implemented, B&R procedure CP-QCI-2.4-9 should have provided

an adequate inspection record for demonstrating that the air gap between j buildings was adequately maintained. However, the TRT found only two inspection reports relating to this procedure (the December 15, 1977 and January 3, 1978, reports referenced). These reperts did not fulfill the 3 complete inspection requirements of CP-QCl-2.4-9. Furthermore, this 1 procedure was deleted on July 18, 1978 (B&R memo IM-14835). A G&H memo of a January 30, 1978 (GHF-2390) indicated that ao inspection was made on l November 23, 1977, and stated that the removal of the retofoam from the )

subject areas was acceptable. However, the meme only related to construc-  !

~

tion at that point and did not provide any documented evidence of the j inspections that were made. i A B&R interoffice memo of February 19, 1978 (IM-12934), discussed an inspection of the seismic gap between the Auxiliary Building and the Containment' Building for Unit 1. The memo indicated that the removal of rotofoam was not completed and requested _ further removal and/or

i engineering evaluation. 211EEinDnusmparent]iTnvemittWthTs

] M ie - ver,3 hen found nn far-T +-+oW hicatini-lhe

.! @ M EhD.1-M E, fBetweenlepT.emDerJ45-1978,ansLys&oYar 4.H787a3&'hbaspector.ma'de additlo'nai-imum om of 6. m sap betweedE.seissir at(gUrri-

i htructures. QV4 #eeentearmas wara JassegS_3~-~In five c6t of the six areas, the inspector indicated unsatisfactory conditions due to the

, presence of foreign material in the air gap, such as wood wedges, rocks, clumps of concrete, and rotofoam. These unsatisfactory inspection reports were' officially resolved on April 18, 1983, in response to NCR C-83-01067 (April 13, 1983). The disposition of this NCR noted that " field investi-

gation reveals that most of the material has been removed." Based on discussions with TUEC engineers, it is the TRT's understanding that field  ;

,- investigations were made but that no permanent records of these investi- 1 i

gations were maintained. IUEC engineers provided the TRT with five pages of field measurements made between March 15 and March 24, 1983, which indicated that investigations of the air gap between the Auxiliary ,

Building and the Fuel Building were conducted. These measurements l

. appeared to indicate that the required air gap was not provided to the 813-foot, 6-inch elevation (the required elevation in procedure CP-QCI-2.4-9). Even though the measurements indicated a nonconforming condition, TUEC could not provide any documentation indicating whether an

, engineering analysis was performed to justify this nonconformance or

! whether the material was subsequently removed. The TRT attempted to j inspect the air gap between the structures but could not because in most

! cases the final joint sealer or roof flashing had already been installed.

In several areas between the Auxiliary Building and the Safeguards '

i Building, the air gap could be observed and appeared to be clear of any l obstructions. In one doorway between the Safeguards Building for Unit 1  :

1

. K-b_ --

__-- w.-, -.~

7 - -.

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

.-,..q_._.... .._~ , ,,g____ ,,,

, _ . _.,.u-..m. L.-.4 . R u' e.e ' . J. ~. . 12.2 0.... E. e M. ~ .a H l t

and the Auxiliary Building at the 830-foot, 6-inch elevation the air gap was clear to an observer looking up. However, a wooden board and other debris were observed when viewed straight in and downward.

1

5. Conclusion and Staff Positions: Based on the review of available  !

inspection reports and related docume on l discussions with TUEC engineers, the' g -= j + * += w a= h - Tield observations, and_on N9N ,w.m.msz Field

, LagMme amaNgeeg,pronaan l investigations by B&R QC inspectors indicated unsatisfactory conditions

due to the presence of debris in the air gap, such as wood wedges, rocks, i'

clumps of concrete and rotofoam. The disposition of the NCR relating to this matter states that the " field investigation reveals en removed." However, the _

that most of the

+ A +*r=- ==;-Irna m 5C material -

r F= "" ' e r n n m,,,, o , m.m ncm . .o# .c w . _gg---

ibc . g _wrsuu %

~

Based on discussions with TUEC engineers, it is the TRT's understanding ..

that g31danvesugationsm- -dehtithatjoyrpanemanegorxis>were iaiPiYtrained.' Up; addit 166, it is hamTAY_efft"3;iiat the beinsgiy '

ARstAUatico oflelas335,,.gojpT.3,gj3r jurtwrfly/(mwn='a") >etween the Safeguards Building.and theleactor Building, and below grade for the , j

_other concrete structures, 4$ consmenT.aug_ _ _ ____._ e u w  !

l, s ,

Cassumptionsand,dysanggocaussac-toanaews fina&ses uryjeJineateojnT2,hedia=3 ha+u *-- w us-**aartM- me.muaitL1JgigAMsA). The jQ TRT j the7efore, nce'Mth ,tMR.9 coricTudes c + i that AlJtLinas aa -i.328A Ma malyph=~+'aWg@mt had.sMd $hich sted !  ;

riiiiHH"'5tparati on .u s gseumic7=+=aamm e snah a mre4WW i l

shterieti nn A,ri nnAn,gagghquake. ,

Depending on the extent of nonconformance with FSAR Sections 3.8.1.1.1 ,

3.8.4.5.1, and 3.7.B.2.8, the allegation is judged to have merit and l potential safety significance. Prompt remedial actions as delineated below should be implemented.

%*6 ass e gahn No closing interview could be held regarding these allegations, because  !

the M ~'" , ' . . ." ;; r m . : t ha r.;; . r ateyde w u s u u e.+ym. a y,

6. gi.s y., m , a cutL 3haTIf ,

1. PeWM.andinsnsr+Mn of _the as=nuin.#.onditiond to Enrigriat h _ _,J,,. a uunki5r d M W t~evoJY4"' m Jpbis has been provided.

l 3

2. hvMm2#4.MI@_fMM*4 which y=w=+=dhat the gg m6-i i

and httidM*M32 .-..m u w.iu.=s= =wvuu...-(as I determineTby inspections of the h-builtT6nd1TiEWdie'Im ry_wir?

in ,3mf i c pgj 3.y. -in se,sulc mpvi.suphergagnfag1'c' f*j., iaa"J". cDIactgcl.1it31.at the4atego.;v.,AAtr.uctot es, components, and 1 ping when compared with the results of the original analyses. .

r---- '

g-pf h

-T.,'id [%,.' ?,i.)hy[.[W*N_. I

. " . " . .. I e

_m ._ . _ _ _ _ ._-____

_y _ _. ___ _ __ _ __ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

.-. . - - . .w - , ii M: G_a L . i .. .%&.Lu

• s':i.L'--- n~-.R .<ad. -

. l l

3

!t  !

1 l Contrary to the above, t af3Dff

~ ~

a

,j fueWEDGCDgEM$hich TSrWW10ed. 1-urthe rmo re , i t ' s __ _ __ .. _

L . = - -- at . i .,-.-

d ...

7:.

m l

'l 10 CFR 50 requires that: ,

i'

" Measures sna e established to assure that cond tions adverse to qual- i 1

ity, such as failures, malfunctions, deficienci tation efective  ;

material and equipment, and

. @ hall assure measures s that the cause of the condition is determined andIn the case of s i

corrective action taken to preclude repetition. The identification of the significant' condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to appropriate leveJs of management." -

.i as evidenced by a B&R l ntero ce memorandum of February 19,197C(IM-12934), and B&R field measurements ma -

ch 24, 1983, indicated I

_. -- - - - - -'^ E "a ywes. ? 8 TIVE WI 3IA inspections of the air gap between Septemtier 14. 1978 and October 17, 1978 <ndica+a unem+4.+="+arv canditions. The B M fun r

_ -w dufC3Y'NCRTM067f %ril 11 1 &

~

WW Iweeft 1=**P-} E 'l C W- < JZC 'ME -  : 1" 4d-a+1f4"a 1 9 8'--

r -_% a W,.m .-mn re . tn i m.- ' - -

-~d=<eem=+- thecsans'I:.i sract.bf77-7 itina< Md.. ..;M inoHoes-4renrewhanv evid==e= 'in d==anstrate_: ~

j i,.i%# field %=5tigau6ms_:cefei T ' +tJes_'dt-Mti+1a ,,,,3ection.ve_rej ,

MHs nerlormeg. . .

0, d= tad December 15, 1977 and January 3.197BJ ww =~ *a -eM e near-d"W=av t6u'nd. These recor".s nua. '3ltTf11P$heh sr.atstat---+4a= meents'm==nts_sf.

j- :f y -J .e Furthermore, this cedure was deleted on July 1978 i; @(B&RmemoraldumIM-14 wit i:eif7 DP- _.

2a -2 ena _

__ re _~ ~ , en developed. -

8. Attachments: None.

G

. - - - . - - ..------..-m-.. . G- . .- . . - - - . - - . . . . c. g. .-..s. .- . . - ,.....,--e , , , _

s . . <

. ~ .a. wa .ww.w.u:.au.=we.  : m a ~ . x .+

. i

9. Reference Documents:

1. IR 77-13, dated December 20, 1977.

2. IR 78-01, dated January 30, 1978.

3. CP-QCI-2.4-9, " Inspection of Elastic Joint Filler Material Removal,"

Revision 1, dated December 12, 1977. j

4. B&R Inspection of Elastic Joint Filler Material Removal, dated .

I January 3,1978 and December 15, 1977.

5. GTT-1543, dated September 16, 1977. l

6. TUS-5012, dated October 7,1977.  ;

7. IM-14835, dated July 18, 1978.  !

'8. IM-12934, dated February 19, 1978.

9. IRC-7706, dated October 17, 1978.

i 10. IRC-7707, dated October 11, 1978. ,

l 11. IRC-0320, dated September 14, 1978. i

12. IRC-0319, dated September 14, 1978.  !

l

13. IRC-7705, dated September 20, 1978. l

14. IRC-7708, dated October 3, 1978.  :

15. NCR C-83-01067, April 13, 1983.

16. B&R Field Measurements concerning "As-Built on Concrete Inside Seismic Gap @A-F," 5 pages, dated between March 15 and 24, 1983.

17. GHF-2390, dated January 30, 1978.

10. This statement prepared by:

C. Hofmayer, TRT Date Technical Reviewer I,

Reviewed by:

L. Shao, Date -

Group Leader i ,

i l

Approved by: 1 i V. Noonan, Date l l Project Director l l 4

1 e

1 l

. 1 i

l l T1 I K-d 1 .

i

\_ _ . _.- -

_ . . = _,. , _ - ... -. - , . - . .

. . , n, .,w

-m_ . . _ . . . . . ._ .u m._u A.uavanmA <m 1

i g

n.. .

f 1

l

1. Allegation Category: Civil and Structural 12, Concrete Construction '

and Deficiencies / Tolerances

2. Allegation Number: AC-29 O[

3. Characterization: It is alleged that a spillway pillar, span, or column was erected 75 degrees to 80 degrees offset and that reinforcing steel j was emitted from a concrete wall.

1 4. Assessment of Safety significance: The implied safety significance of 1

j this allegation, if true, is that the structural integrity of the affected structures may be indeterminate.

a )

b There are two spillways at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES).

1 One, the service water discharge spillway, is located near the safe shut-

]

down impoundment (SSI); the other is located at the Squaw Creek Dam. The 1

I alleger stated that the construction in question took place some time be-1 tween 1976 and 1977. The spillway at Squaw Creek Dam was constructed between August 1976 and January 1977, so it was considered to be the spill-way in question. The spillway.at Squaw Creek Dam, however, does not have j a span, column or pillar. Therefore, on August 3, 1984, the NRC Technical j Review Team (TRT) interviewed the alleger to clarify,this allegation.

n i

From the interview,'the TRT learned that the spillway pillar, span, or

{

i column to which the alleger referred was located in the Service Outlet Structure below the Squaw Creek Dam Spillway, which does have a suspended structure and supports that could be described as 'a span and pillars.

• i The TRT inspected the service outlet structure at the Squaw Creek Dam Spillway and found no evidence of any spillway pillar, span, or column j'. which was erected 75 to 80 degrees offset. The TRT also determined that i the general configuration of the structure was consistent with that shown on the fol. lowing drawings:

i -

l FN-SCR-37 FN-SCR-48

FN-SCR-39 j

FN-SCR-49 FN-SCR-40 FN-SCR-71 i

j FN-SCR-42 FN-SCR-72 -

FN-SCR-44 q

p

j. The TRT learned during an interview with the alleg'er that the allegatkon 2

concerning the 6-foot by 6-foot concrete wall area of the Safeguards .

f.

Building, which allegedly had no reinforcement placed around a pipe i approximately 24-inches wide, was incorrect. (Refer to Civil and Structural Category 6, Allegation AC-30.) The alleger identified the 6-foot by 6-foot concrete wall area as located in a structure near the Squaw Creek Dam Spillway.

The TRT inspected the structures located near the Squaw Creek Dam

• spillway and found two structures with a.2- to 3-foot-diameter pipe surrounded by reinforced concrete. One of these was the outlet works' .

conduit section; the other was the return pump station. The TRT examined i

141 concrete placement cards associated with these two structures. >

_s y . . c.s 7 , - - - .

a ..u::. w . w .s k u b} m a . L L. a I

i .

1

) TheTRTdetermInedthattheconduitsectionwasplacedbetweenJune27 *

~

and November 17, 1975, and the return pump station section was placed between March 31, 1976 and February 10, 1977. Because the alleger's ,

employment on the project began in 1976, the TRT concluded that the l

! allegation, if valid, concerned the return pump station. There are two ,

24-inch steel pipes in the return pump station which pass through a j i concrete wall. The TRT reviewed reinforcement drawings (FN-PS-35 and FN-PS-36) for the wall at the return pump station and found that the wall section surrounding the pipe'was designed to have the following

reinforcement: -

! a. Eight No. 5 diagonal bars at the inside face j b. Eight No. 7 diagonal bars at the outside face 3 c. Ten No. 7 vertical bars at the outside face

d. Ten No. 5 vertical bars at the inside face j e. Ten No. 7 dowels (lap spliced with item c)

f. Eight No. 5 dowels (lap spliced with item d) .

The walls of the return pump station were placed on June 21, 1976. The TRT examined the pertinent concrete placement card. It contained the

+

required two signatures certifying that the reinforcement was correctly placed prior to concrete placement.

5. Conclusions and Staff Position: Since the structures at which the .

! construction deficiencies occurred are categorized as N th rm se -

=a because a structure that

, was constructed at 75 degrees to 80 degrees offset from the intended i geometry could not be accepted by ins ection er 1 without etection l of such a significant deviation. - -

,  ?

r e the I ,

! Additional evidence is provided by the fact that the portion of the l' l wall surrounding the 24-inch pipes has been subjected to the maximum ,

i static load stress for which it was designed. The soil pressure has been

' in place and acting upon the wall for several years, and the reservoir ,

was completely filled by water pumped through tso 24-inch diameter pipes I

passing through the wall; therefore, this portion of the wall has also

. been subjected to whatever vibratory loads may be imparted to the wall by l the pumping operation. Inspection by the TRT revealed no distress in the l wall, and the structural integrity of the wall was observed to be intact. l 1 .=_-s=wvAiMTWGeM*+RETYAar ~I NEAAESAA9s"*EEC w +i e ~

l l l The TRT informed the alleger by letter of its disposition of this , i f allegation.  !-

l .

6. Actions Required: None.

go j K-89 j i

, w

, b i . . . - . 4 % 1"d. ~ ?. . .a MsMO ' I -

• Nb ' L -

~

• ='1.U. h 74?a4 .: U oms I .

l I 1 .

~

8. Attachments: None.

9. Reference Documents: ,

1. FSAR, Volume IV

2. Freese & Nichals Drawings:

FN-PS-32' FN-SCR-48 FN-PS-35 FN-SCR-49 FN-P3-36 FN-SCR-71 FN-SCR-37 FN-SCR-72 ,

FN-SCR-39 FN-SCR-40 -

FN-SCR-42 ~.

. FN-SCR-44

3. 141 Freese arid Nichols Concrete' Placement Cards

10. This statement prepared by:

' J. Devers, TRT Date Technical Reviewer 4

Reviewed by: .

L Shao, Date Group Leader Approved by:

V. Noonan, Date Project Direc+ar O

l 1 l

t l

e #-

Tr*. .

f ?., .

?'

e K-M 7p'.; ., ;  : :. .- *~f. -

- *A'

. - ~~ -

l

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

1 *  ; l i ,1 j'

. . 8

)

~.=

{ i I i

. 1

1. Allegation. Category: Civil and Structural 13, Cracks in Concrete Beneath l l the Reactor l'essel ,

2. Allegation Number: AC-44 op

3. in the

]

4. Assessment of Safety Significance: T Ifed safety significance of ,

l

) this allegation is thath g j the .

n EWEGBWm - m M_O The NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) did not initis11y attempt to contact

the alleger because the allegation was sufficiently clear to the TRT to proceed with the investigation.

1

- ;_ rl

= u M Sg w i,cysematg T1e TRT examined concrete __ lacement pack-  ;*

' 'aca

' _ 1n -2 w -uul ano nLa L ow, and found

_ ' ._ _ . . ._.e wnnis M - -- -#

u__ _ _ _ , ,

..s, which occurred on marcn 21,  ;

g7h tde==:t s o n i ac___ an-r.ce: .2 r _ . -s,. ---2_ -- -_ -- 6.a - > _

- M- L. ;zontauy.2ostne s,.gr- - ; r- =r._.aw . me - -

--S S ,

. =_- " - z _,2_ . iaeeristated on M 11 19// that he found the cracks h

curina r s invesuaan an _

1 a ---  !

this testimony. EYone:vithhtef-sa.M-enaineers civen ongine 7:and and ~

s and seesenn e =- =C =-- ^ M ' Me 7 --W, h s n 5/ The 4

- g nut shaoe of ahe concrete sectinn and the rigid form in the opening

'~

made ituru c # TAW ~"+ - --Er == 'w- =%a . . - A -. es" j

RE%n~ene -pourr--u t att However. thm - -- m tas. acequate ly.- l4 j weinf% - ,sogW@p_"wWWVhm-e *+wwwal t _AorTF

( ";'

l

[

iii '

l city. 3 1ne cratiKs have Usen-JresasemiLeitlithmTanw 1 th Tl g h Tni h

3__ structuraimschi. The .ed the l.

'T6una it to be in h y  ;

The TRT review of the design indicated that the concrete section was L originally designed as two sections, with etion ints at the  : !

locations whe ks occurred. .

l'

/ ;l

__ __ca s. -

_ _.were not greatly  ;

different from the constructiYn joint w11ch would have  : I the two-placement option had been adopted; thus, the '

e e One of t w erach w==

naar the mid-soan of a deen beam <nannino a 20-foot l-cavitv.1 MaCM - ~ ~ ~ ~ Err %_^re' - =il3si - M EW - - -- _- T

{

BIRWGHaphlsing. If flexural stresses were kept below the tensile [

a strength of concrete, less than 20 percent of the strength of the steel  :; I 1 J F01A-85-59  !

= __ _ _.

F//3

l . = . - . . - . . - . . _w . . _ .  ;. : _ , . .

_ l b \

l 1

I would be utilized. In desi n the TC C CTtGT2 ' ~

[ M h , both or tha * ' ' ' # -

uno =wo -,c; ;t'-t

erresion .,

wre  : The 5ttdRksgia'as h ota-ag$$ Mal'

! e =r*-w**4=aan=C**iae a#2fon-oYttfecks; the MINI 8thyf the ur setsrtn3he:: tent 310Engg3ggmainsTasec m3d . A crack in the upper com-i 'pressive stress zone closes when load is applied and is rendered i innocuous. l

. The beam section must also be capable of carrying shear stresses. The i

! cracks observed should not produce a critical situation because shear i stresses are low near midspan and because crack planes are normally l i irregular so that aggregate interlock, particularly in the tightly closed i i compressive zone, resists shear stress. The biggest defense against shear, however, is the fact that the concrete was heavily over-reinforced. l The critical load condition is not the static load condition, nor even ' . l the earthquake condition, but the differential pressure resulting from a I '.

postulated accident condition. For this condition all the load is l carried by the steel, with no credit given to the concrete, and the l 4 presence of cracks in the concrete is immaterial. The design of the section was controlled by thickness requirements for shielding. The section was thicker and, therefore, stronger than required to carry the i i loads. The cracks did not make the steel vulnerable to corrosion because l the upper surface, which provides the most likely ingress for water, is i sealed, and the bottom surface is in a dry environment. The individual l 2 who sade the allegation discussed above was contacted by the TRT to I 1 inform him of the TRT's findings. The alleger expressed his satisfaction I l

with the TRT's disposition of his allegation, w- -+-=

• en s .o ,wnm 40 miiii. The as We sh M *d = inat > ,

, LZ.=elv 'affee mi hv the -creeks. Accordingly,< i h '8 ta+*a-**uatj ~

l M :"- % Y.*w wiegsf4_===.e=. s g._ m ,; arj,  !

! The TRT held a closing interview with the alleger, who was satisfied with l

the TRT's disposition of this allegation.

) 6. Actions Required: None.

. Attachments: None.

9. Reference Documents

i Concreto placement package 101-2812-001.

1.

i 2. NCR C-650.

3. ASLB lestimony June 7, 8,'and 9, 1982.

l l

l p .,

i .

9[

j K-88

, . : .:; ! =

b _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .._

..a .  :.c-

--..-....-..;-~-...w ..,

- t

. . !1 ,

l 1 ,

f

-i t

1 10. This statement prepared by:

1 R. Philleo, TRT Date Technical Reviewer Reviewed by:

L. Shao, Date Group Leader Approved by: -

V. Noonan, Date J Project Director

! I i

i

'?  !

a 0

i I

t0

1 i .

4 i

I -

i s

s

'! l

.j l

=j .

^j .

f5-K-a9

_ - . . = . .

l. _ _ .. - - - - . - . -- 2.  ! 2= = :== ~"

/

{

% ~. . D 1 >

I

1. Allegation Category: Civil and Structural 14, Control Room Area Deficiencies

2. Allegation Number: AE-17

3. Characterization: It is alleged that the field run conduit, the drywall, and the lighting installed in the area above the ceiling panels in the control room are classified as non-seismic and are supported only by wires and that these items may fall as a result of a seismic event.

4. Assessment of Allegation: The implied safety significance of this allega-tion is that, if true, failure of control room ceiling elements during a seismic event may cause injury to the control room operators and adversely impact plant safety.

4 The NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) did not initially attempt to contact l the allegers because the allegation was sufficiently clear to allow the l TRT to proceed with its investigation.

The TRT electrical group rev.iewed the electrical aspects of this allegation.

(See Electrical and Instrumentation Category 4.) The Civil and Mechanical group of the TRT evaluated the seismic aspects of this allegation, w igg 1 m e a w nenwine r = w E m ~ '* W 2 - 1-

_ 3- w gm.:=,w = ~__- _ ___n ~

- G iuf M n. The Yomanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSESidodrol room is in a seismic

~ Category I structure, with certain seismic Category II and nonseismic components located in the ceiling. Seismic Category I refers to those systems or components which must remain functional in the event of an earthquake. Seismic Category II refers to those systems or components whose continued functioning is not required, but whose failure could reduce the functioning of any seismic Category I system or component (as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.29) to an unacceptable level or could result in an incapacitating injury to occupants of the control room. Seismic Category II systems or components are, therefore, designed and constructed so that a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) will not cause such failure or injury.

In assessing this allegation, the TRT reviewed the CPSES nonsafety-related conduit, lighting fixtures, and the suspended ceilings installed in the control room. Three types of suspended ceiling exist in the control room:

drywall, louvered, and acoustical. The following list designates those ceiling elements present in the control room and their seismic category

. designation:

1. Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning - Seismic Category I

2. Safety-related Conduits - Seismic Category I

3. Nonsafety-related Conduits - Seismic Category II

4. Lighting Fixtures - Seismic Category II S. Sloping Suspended Drywall Ceiling - Monseismic

6. Acoustical Suspended Ceiling . - Monseismic

7. Louvered Suspended Ceiling - Monseismic f/N =

[

__ _.._a_

_ . - l o' ..

l l

The TRT also examined the control room ceiling system and pertinent design drawings, and met with cognizant Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC)

, engineers on July 31, 1984, to discuss the specific seismic analyses L l performed for the ceiling elements. In addition, the TRT held a conference call on August 1, 1984, with principal Gibbs & Hill (G&H) design engineers (at which TUEC representatives were present) to discuss the design and calculation procedures for the ceiling elements.

i - The TRT determined that none of the suspended ceiling elements were 1

{ considered to be either seismic Category I or II; however, TUEC had l modified the sloping suspended drywall to add more support. G&H could not j provide backup calculations to support this modification, nor could TUEC l provide justification for their position that the remaining suspended ,

i ceiling elements (i.e., the louvered and acoustic elements) would not fall )

1 and cause an incapacitating injury to operating personnel. This would .

) indicate failure of the quality assurance program to ensure that )

applicable provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.29 were fully met.

The TRT requested backup calculations for the sloping suspended drywall, l TUEC provided the calculations on August 3, 1984, along with the calcula- l tion packages for the lighting fixtures, the nonsafety-related conduits  :

larger than 2 inches in diameter, and the safety-related conduit. The TRT l reviewed these calculations, except those for the safety-related conduit i

since they were designated as seismic Category I and therefore were  !

excluded from the scope of this review.

l-l

[ The TRT found that nonsafety-related conduits that were less than or equal

! to 2 inches in diameter were not supported by redundant seismic Category II cable restraints. The TRT also verified the adequacy of calculations j

for the nonsafety-related conduits larger than 2 inches in diameter. 1 l

The TRT found that the G&H calculations were based on the equivalent static load method, which involves multiplication of the dead weight of an item by an appropriate seismic acceleration coefficient. This equivalent static load calculation did not take into account the influence from the adjoining suspended ceilings on the calculated response. This was significant because redundant cable supports were not provided for the suspended louvered and acoustical ceilings, and the impact from the accelerations of the lighting fixtures was not considered in any analysis, j The ceiling, as a whole, manifested a more. complex configuration than that

assumed in the equivalent static load analysis in that the effects from adjoining suspended ceilings were not considered. A justification based on the seismic response characteristics of the entire ceiling, which would

,!, account for the frequency content and amplification characteristics of the seismic motions, as represented by floor response spectra, is required to justify the value of the seismic acceleration coefficient used.

' 5. M be4 ant and Staff Position: TheM ={th,,atstw PmWWMmW ra=++ai- Dan =-telling TaThhthe sehmic Cateacry or II desionatfon.

[

j i

RMfica11vi W.x d esilinne th.eseTheen

' items are therimeinnatep ensnanente _

hMEEREdfd..drgil,RecongMqa1 a:, nonseismic amm ent and ]Pf I l

star efv +ha~ nenwi ti ant efMulatory Guide t'29. W sen'+WeMee noLy l

r--a " em <2- - , J-Ste;ptiselE 'SN/ """**"=k - l*+"C- -- Am-w l

l er K-yT l

l l

a L_-_ _ m_ - -

__ e - -- _. __ _ _ = _- - - -- -

1

.. D _. _! I

. ~T . .,

• i- ,

I are Jh3 mil? -,5_- .Ew.,@v_

The TRT concludes.that calculations supporting the seismic Category II y lighting fixtures do not adequately reflect the rotational interaction 9

with the nonseismic items. In addition, the fundamental frequencies of j the supported masses were not calculated to determine the influence of the 1 seismic response spectrum at the control room ceiling elevation.

I The individual who made the allegation discussed above will be contacted a

by the TRT upon resolution of this issue to inform him of the action taken.

.. {

h o '

j 1. The results of seismic analysis which demonstrate that the nonseigmic  !

t items in the control room (other than the sloping suspended dryweall f

ceiling) satisfy the provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.29 and FSAR

}

Section 3.78.2.8.

~

7 d 2. An evaluation of seismic design adequacy of support systems for the lighting fixtures (seismic Category II) and the suspended drywall

. ceiling (r.onseismic item with modification) which accounts for pertinent floor response characteristics of the systems.

j 3. Verification that those items in the control room ceiling not installed in accordance with the requirements of Regulatory Guide q

l; 1.29 satisfy applicable design requirements.

i. 4. The results of an analysis that justify the adequacy of the -

nonsafety-related conduit support system in the control room for I,

conduit whose diameter is 2 inches or less.

j. 5. The results of an analysis which demonstrate that the foregoing ij problems are not applicable to other Category II and nonseismic

[ structures, systems and components elsewhere in the plant. l h

I

!5

[f H

l, 6

J

. ttachments: None'. '

9T L .x-ee L

=

h ' (

p..

%_ * * * [*

l m .'m+ .:.......

. . . ._j. .

,, 3;. ..

. ..-. a - - . = . . . .- -

.xm:=.::.a,_. a.wu c .

• * -e O

t

9. Reference Documents:

1. Calculation No. SCS-171C, Set No. 2, " Seismic Restraint of Lighting Fixtures," pages 1-37, dated January 14, 1981.

I

2. Design Change Authorization No. 10757, dated August 10, 1981.

3. Regulatory Guide 1.29, " Seismic Design Classification."

4. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. (TUSI) letter CPPA-11, 410, dated July 22, 1981.

Gibbs & Hill letter GTT-7965, dated August 7, 1981.

5.

, 6. TUSI memorandum CPPA-40, 224, dated August 3, 1984.

I

10. This statement prepared by:

J. Tapia, TRT Date Technical Reviewer ,

I C. Hofmayer, TRT Date Technical Reviewer Reviewed by:

. L. Shao, Date Group Leader Approved by:  !

V. Noonan, Date  !

Project Director i

i l

I I

1 i i I

)

I l

i r

/A l v-96 1

. . = - . - . - . .

e /  ?

j . t p , ,

g L

1.

2. _ Allegation Number: ebar Improperly Drilled l

I AC-13, AC-14, AC-15, AC-18 and AC-40

3. Characterization:

drA It is M tha Li Teif@*til _

- . . _g i Q;.7he issue includes j

c. the *"a+

thexr===. wr2Hn MOEy2 sed in the i

===- = messism1}i in the Fuel Han _

ng ng I

{

^ 4. l Assessment of Safety Significance:

The implied safet these allegations is that i.

3 si ificance of ~

Ene m aa mps3 W m w ,. ,

The NRCAC-13 allegations Technical and AC-14 Review to clarify Team (TRT) contacted his concerns.dividual whothe in made initially AC-40, andattempt AC-15. to contact the individuals who made allThe TRT did not

. egations AC-18, ,

,, p ---- -

B Mns ti,e sui gg. __e aW.= " sed for the masac orcrobar. c""_'26'RC lurino the N invest tio u f this '

p, d: .

. s- M e. .aana

]; = "'

These individuals providedgges***9 ducat.

~~ ~

no mf

. ,- M anyan9 i

These statemenus are a part oert -

testimony received indicating that holes were d ill, which conclud r

t cut without proper documentation, and no evidence ed or rebar was contradict

_ _ --- the r ' _--~ . % testimony '

of these individuals."---~was found to

.wuGrL r3,

.m**wsmaweF?oni*y34994%188 _

_1 ff __ _ j Because ann- f.U4 .

^

~~

the alieceriiise%7"'3ntfaThPEMiNMNs Yed MEcgrJ.I,arsTar:d._ - a t

- ~~c' a_ -

u wiaa -+na*4sMF '.kQTRT a

~ estimated tha ~ -

1scuss'ons with the TRT. the allecerscia.

- g- r?"

es g -

th'er be specific as to how many drills heheordereddepending u

]

• that the Although could not

, i U r m .. number e thou ht w iwould be in the thousands.

i Th

! tS Wers-ahn>"" "" *m nn r .-on49eu r"" 6

• Cdis=-r.d s m q,-m

't i I[

i ing the ==== = ~ NL;driah ""'" "'*-"i "  !

" *= MTd p'  !

her w 7' I andde'slibdBBEkhiNi@J.$$'d Considering the; "

pmetag7stne eJ"# d th p t,

FMC i r

_,,gwg>-.w,,p-6ar-we-==-ury*"MNT'r #"O

q - ___...___u..__. . . _ _ _ _ . - -

\

l .,

and the fact that the structures consist primarily of heavily

,j reinforced concrete walls and slabs, the TRT determined that. if such _

unauthorized rebar cuttino occurred, th _ 7':- . _~'M-Whave l gear = _ ttfahm. _W$tfewwf __eei+_%es. _

b. -

anatinns- h .

- ansT -40 alsowavee1ruestions regarding the a uttiert ~

- r, but K4ietJdentifyr ift!c' h ;l Durin the course of the NRL Region IV investigation of

, this math r, the - ~~

,, t was reported, would identi he unaux.nomeo ano u?" T rWrebar cutting. ,

. . . . . _ . ._ 9:

!I 2 . E Z h _ m ,- .i =& l 1 +

d In discuss this matter with the TR the all er confirmed that_ .y d ce==+ n- ca. As part otriReportj i ,

' -AR3d53aftzst%ns, t l

approximately half of the documents noted in the log for the rebar cutting. He found that in all cases rebar cuts were properly ]

identified on a design change authorization (DCA) or on a component

.j modification card (CMC). In addition, the rebar cuts were traced to

- and identifiea on specific bu11 ding structural drawings, with the j corresponding authori, zing document number. The TRT reviewed 10 CMCs ,

] and confirmed the findings of the Region IV investigation. )

l

,' In reviewing authorizations in the log, the TRT noted that certain d CMCs involved a number of rebar cuts in one area, and selected these

'i for review. In one case, 7 different CMCs (3307, 3664, 3665, 3666, J 3667, 3668 and 3669) seemed to pertain to one area and accounted for ~

d. 68 rebar cuts. Upon reviewing the documentation, the TRT found that these cuts were made in a tunnel area in the Fuel Building. (The alleger identified this as a location where a large number of rebar l

, was cut.) However, the 68 cuts were arranged such that only 9 bars j actually had been cut. In another case, the log indicated 25 rebar ,

.] cuts m "*a**"- tn CMC 00970 In this case. the TRT determined  !

': that-"hwW5 5"""Wr- 5= hYe -m'9= -^ h==m. -

Fi n a l ly , the Soededi e= * =d =4 ah+ e- **+ = ==-+i4 m i ne t.n cut inn , .  ;

_ Once again,Rhese,eight;g tsasecantaamme.harlin.a3 support beam All  !

= =--- n w i w w a=ra - _ > 1_8 a es also iiiustrate t'tBE1teria4. he point that afedded q - - - - -

4 _ _ _ _ . .

jce.

By w$^-^A*=T h ensasiaswaiir- em- - ~Tn ^m , cis~e s ,

hr --. w a<m 6 erg; n Desarsamr---I.saem;s. sus 4 tot. Thus,  !

4 th G .- a secutreages; Wit".sF== =- --M Nhram te... .,.yi, l

_ . w e.c.wr..c

, 1

1 The TRT eytinates ,that are indicated in

l the g]3ggerfs'_ log. Discussions with the alleger revealed that he

'l bel eyes he cut approximately five percent more rebar than was authorized, a number that corresponds to approximately 17 unauthorized rebar cuts. As noted earlier, such a number would have little effect on the safety of the structures.

m le f=

K,0T d Q

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

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

i

c. I " i .,,&

j M M mL' ' he a8S TDlF EF 9' e6ho45' w _ _. -

e m e - - u- m_--- ^

b3M) ava1]=4aaCat10RMid i A u, na 4--* a - inen M I. R (bram'8F eganuary 5 ER$1BH m W eriIIed ._Cnallgej

. h w _2.+mlu maidd'ja -

g g yu g gy,,gegg y l

y =+==,-d** d a set;sh 1.1.1.4 He said the meta p ates w re used to secure th,vwMeye . A:mwh d5E--r'=00n 'th _ . _,, ,

E- srswesemdeMW,8darsaww-A oT tB20lkR95R20.5-- ERIMeTQf

. The TRT inspected the trolley process aisle rails and its anchoring system and observed no violations of project drawings or i specifications. The TRT reviewed the reinforcement drawings (2323-5-0800 and 2323-5-0820) for the Fuel Handling Building to The drawing showed three layers of j reinforcement in the upper part of the mat, which consisted of a No.

4 1 determine the location 18 bar running in the east-west direction, in the first and third layers, and a No.11 bar running % the north-south direction, in the second layer.

The review of the reinforcement drawings (2323-5-0800 and

! 2323-5-0820) revealed that the layout of the east-west reinforcement and the' trolley process aisle rails was such that only one bar of the

east-west reinforcement could be cut by drillin hol 11

~

e _. i.1on.

wra4 en;r7401%is . - 9 M--A . at"on to c ut- W C . at: W t i $sr.it en1v'=== +an . )ut it s L"C -'41m;estjtor.ImatJon I to 7tised _- - ahWher- The DCA (No. 7041) also stated that

the' expansion bolts and baseplates could be moved in the east-west direction to avoid interference with the No.11 reinforcement running in the north-south direction. The information described in DCA No.

7041 was substantiated by Gibbs & Hill calculations. The DCA ,

approval was based on the understandino that an1v +ha unnermost No.

In eata h amant would be cut. - - - m % 1es h men " ^---e w ,,,,isea'? ,

l Md5 -OT.4 hen %haf="] ' -^ t;;.ma w m R authoriaaSo hn l The DCA indicated that the holes were drilled to accommodate 1/2-inch i Hilti bolts, which require a minimum embedment of 5- inches (as noted in F1 . 39, Sh. 5 of 5 ched to DCA-7041 .

• e ass meme.wsag. .

ytanianoJespa ertMe65.4achesg3eep7 c .

Although the above discussed allegations, with the exception of AC-15 which requires further action, cannot be substantiated. the fact that .

! <nch allecations were made indicated t aat -,w.snew wermen.s-

G

-QYtF:aErhin.- .,, , . . p m . .

-- Mi-i = _ ==9asa afMammid

^' ~ ~ ~ '

stora dril teits..;

The TRT interviewed the individual concerned about the loan of rebar drills without proper cocumentation and the unauthorized cutting of rebar at nonspecific locations to inform him of the TRT's finding.

l This individual did not agree with certain TRT findings. In

/0$

K-S6' i

i r

w. _A.. . . . . . . , . . . - . ... . . .. --

l' _ . - + - - .

.. w . . . . . . - . . - - - .

to lI

'J

e icula "W_=;[ --=-

q-gge,*g--- =

'WMr -- aL - . ' d' '

r-- M.~

Z w - = ^ L- -

~~

He tdlTeYs7hYtle g7 I

4 number of drill bits ordered by him was in the thousands and that as

l much as 20 percent of_the drill bits may have been used in an

unauthorized manner. - _ M5fe,.. _ ERetWatle"Ded '

! i,w . er .z . . _ muuan:so..nts.1MrrtedMiamplptAust -

'? F" -i.iyawmpump. maps a, .aech-

As a result of these additional discussions with the alleger, the TRT

!j searched TUEC's files relatine to the nucchase of diamond drill bits A

0l l

N3hi[Ehji$7I5iti-r x=' m* wwa: - ~a% E Ey! Af ter this period, other  !

, manufacturers supplied t ie c r' l bits. Based on the us, ace through ,

""" ^^"Mes%Cf %= jut 81amond i)

Mareh 10. 1983. th- w M '

gerttw. sa w.n ,==ad to date on Ahs. eeniecq M; neith3guj j p .g m . m .nm. - ..m.enw---- r+h.ched manner tTiatgence drf I bit coula.no umr ticut:en to "1ve -rebars, th'e'jand TRT ,

e s t , w, ,r, w,,- - . - .wa h -- =-i  :.,2JMM1- -"3Hd -

1 i

7 wi t hnttt authori7atinn. th would r r nt .eE of the j = :_r- -

-ca. --%immel it u re used in

] ha -* M =8 _ ._it still wo sent95 g q neberia ant. Thus cousa nave f Ebeen. nce no ormation d - was suppitea to we brary, assume that these unauthorized

'j cuts, if they did occur, were scattered throughout the plant and not concentrated in one localized area. In addition, as noted earlier, a J

large number of rebar cuts are not necessarily synonymous with an j identical number of rebar actually being cut. It is also noted that '

nuclear structures are very conservatively designed. In addition to 4

the conservative loads, load combinations, and safety factors

., utilized in the design, it is the common practice of the design

! engineer to specify 5 to 10 percent more rebar than is actually

• j required by his calculations. This occurs because it is difficult to

! obtain the exact area of reinforcement required using standard bar l1 -'

sizes and standard bar spacing. The area of reinforcement is selected from charts which show the a.rea provided for each bar size l at a given spacing. Rather than underdesigning, the designer selects an area of reinforcement from the charts which is higher than that

t which is actually required. In addition, because critical structures contain a large number of bars, they are not generally vulnerable to 1

.l the random cutting of a small number of. bars.,  !

5.

Conclusion and Staff Positions: The TRT concludes that allegations AC-13, AC-14, AC-18 and AC-40 have no structural safety significance.

l W

K-9f l

1

- ---n,. *

-~-., .

,.. .-.--....._A...--..:.- ...-.--.a....

l 4C , 6 n

a. The allegations were not specific as to who made unauthorized cuts of rebar or where the cuts took place.

l b. The number of unauthorized rebar cuts alleged, if true, would have an inconsequential effect on the safety of the structures.

f l --- - 4N: " Therefore, the final acceptaDi t tt? of 1

- -- - w - -

these e"vi EiC6fM"1'IDNd1'cated on the satisfactory results of the -

f programmatic review of this su3 ject. Any adjustments to the existing

! conclusion of this evaluation resulting from the programmatic review will be reported in a supplement to this SSER.

~.. .

The TRT attempted to contact the individuals who made allegations AC-18 *'k J

}

• and AC-15 to inform them of the TRT's findings. The individual who made j TC-allegation AC-18 c....... L '.='-d.' One of the two individuals involved in allegation A cannot be located; the TRT is still attempting to contact the other. The TRT also contacted the individual who made allega-(%

tioris AC-13,' AC-14, and AC-40 to discuss the TRT's findings pertaining to the concerns he raised in the first closure interview. An interview was

[gd Mg arranged; however, 1 ater.the alleger indicated he did not want to meet j N Telefr 4 utth the TRT. A let ;er will be sent to him informing him of the TRT's

' fjr /3 A findings.

3. TMC.TE.

. ::: 3 m.;.,s _~+

J 1. - i C '.ain W _T ~~'~ " W W D X m i M e M'a'm i M U 3 -- .u.Giniis wa_vma ;cr 1

l 2. " *"~-%'*--7 ~ -.mFE!:~reh'-

- r 95T31nt'egrity is

- - -. a a - - mman ninforcing steel on both the first and i tnird layers was cut.

1 s

i

' 8. Attachments: None. ' g;q ( '. '

44 N Mfr S. Lgs Qg

9. Reference Documents':

1. IR 83-27, 9/28/83.

p 2. IR 83-03, 3/28/83.

'. 3. OI Report A4-83-005, 5/20/83. ~

4. Testimony of A11eger, 4/14/83.

5. A11eger's Log, " Start of New Crew and New Oper~ation Rebar Cutting p Detail."

/

f~

• M ~

! Km06' 4

-l l '

}. ..

- .. . . . . . _ . . . - . . aw

6. Telephone Interview with Alleger, 3/7/84.

7. OI Report A4-83-005, Supplemental, 9/7/83.

8. OI Report Q4-84-001, 1/9/84.

9. Affidavit of A11eger, 2/3/83.

i 10. TRT Interview with A11eger, 8/2/84.

11. CbC-00979.

l 12. (MC-2889.

13. CMC-3022.

14. CMC-3307.

15. CMC-3664-3669. -

l 16. GTT-2863, 10/16/78.

17. GTN-29823, 9/5/78.

I 18. GTT-2874, 10/17/78.

j 19. GTN-29641, 8/25/78.

20. Fuel Building Rebar Cutting Dwg FSC-1000, Sht 1.

21. DCA-7041, Rev. 9, 11/10/82.

l 22. G&H Calc. Book Number SFB-107C Set 1, Set 10-24' . .

23. Reinforcement Dwgs. 2323-S-0800.

24. Reinforcement Dwgs. 2323-5-0801.

25. Reinforcement Dwgs. 2323-5-0820.

26. QI-QP-11.2-1.

10. This statement prepared by:

- C. Hofmayer, TRT Date Technical Reviewer J. Devers, TRT Date Technical Reviewer Reviewed by:

L. Shao, Date i Group Leader e

• Approved by:

V. Noonan, Date Project Director f

e f

'l 6

1,

! O I

g_pq'

. , eyeppe wwwee-t - *++eme*, + e=-wa >N.m---r--e ,*ee et . .- = e. , m we = w w.e c . i s 4,, ,

l Y

~

f F

1. Allegation Catevery: Civil and Structural 16, Excavation and Backfill l

2. Allegation Number: AQ-64 l

3. Characterization: It is alleged that overexcavation and improper fill -

under the Unit 1 Containment Building could invalidate the expected seis-  : i mic response of the foundation due to the change in properties resulting l

from the removal of in-situ material.

1

4. Assessment of Safety Significance: The implied safety significance of .

l this allegation is that, if true, the quality of the concrete basemat may ,

be indeterminate and its dynamic response characteristics may be affacted appreciably. .

The NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) did not initially attempt to contact _

i the alleger because the allegation was sufficiently clear to allow the TRT t l to proceed with its investigation.

During an investigation conducted in 1984, the NRC Office of Investigation (01) interviewed the alleger (84-006, 3/7/84, A-7) and reference was made i to overexcavation and improper repairs in the foundation rock for the t Unit 1 Containment Building. The alleger stated that the excavation was erroneously'made 6 to 8 feet too deep and that upon realization of the error, the repair technique was simply to throw the loose rock back in to the e.xcavation and fill it in with concrete.

i i

! The TRT reviewed NRC inspection reports, the FSAR, and the Atomic Safety l and Licensing Board (ASLB) hearing transcript, where this concern was the subject of contention No. 7 and was admitted into the hearing on June 16, 1980.

[ By order of March 5,1982, the ASLB granted summary disposition of con- l tention No. 7, based on the finding that no genuine issue as to any  ;

L material fact was shown by any of the filings. The TRT also reviewed the '

affidavits and statements filed by TUEC and by the NRC in support of the  !

motion for summary disposition. These documents adequately describe rock -

overbreak, accompanying fissures, and subsequent repairs. Affected areas i were bactfilled with concrete having a minimum compressive strength of

• 2,500 pounds per square inch at 28 days, or were grouted to maintain ,

continuity of the ,:ompetent rock in which fissures were identified. The TRT reviewed the procedures utilized to replace fractured rock with dental concrete and to grout s6rrounding fissures and the accompanying compres-sive test results. The TRT found that FSAR figures 2.5.4-33a through -

i 2.5.4-35 are maps of the excavation showing the location of fractures and '

t the extent of dental concrete backfill. These figures showed that the ,

area of overexcavation represented a small portion of the entire excavated i area. FSAR figure 2.5.4-37, sheets 1 through 21, showed photographs of the excavated walls. The TRT interviewed the NRC inspector who was present during the excavation process and verified the conditions presented in the >

, FSAR. i

~

The TRT independently evaluated the potential impact on the seismic're-sponse of the Unit I containment foundation due to the replacement of a ,

p limited amount of original rock with dental concrete from the standpoint t 1 of possible changes in foundation stiffness. Because of the facts that  ;

) F01A-8 g

_,z w -- .q-l,-- -

. +- ~-~ -' " **Y;..

b (a) the dental concrete's behavior, stiffness, and structural strength  !

were essentially identical to those of the natural rock replaced at the site as indicated by the foundation report and (b) the area affected by the replacement work was relatively small (rofer to FSAR Figures 2.5.4-33a through 2.5.4-35), the TRT determined that no appreciable impact on either the static or dynamic response characteristics of the foundation resulted from the overexcavation. An evaluation prepared by a geotechnical engi-  !

neer in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation supports this con-clusion. He evaluated the effects on static and dynamic foundation sta-l bility of replacing undisturbed limestone and claystone foundation rock with dental concrete and concluded that the ability of the repaired foun- '

dation materials to withstand seismic disturbances had not been impaired. ,

I l

5.

Conclusion and Staff Positions: The TRT concludes that the overexcavation 'I-of a small portion of the Unit 1 Containment Building foundation and the '

i subsequent replacement of the affected area with 2500 psi strength dental  !

concrete and grout did not affect either the static or dynamic characte- ,

ristics of the foundation. Therefore, the expected seismic response has j not been invalidated as alleged., The excavation and repairs have had no safety impact upon foundation integrity. Accordingly, this allegation has neither safety significance nor generic implications. i The TRT has contacted the alleger to arrange an interview to inform him of '

the TRT's finding.

I

6. Actions Required: None.

8. Attachments: None.

9. Reference Documents:

1. NRC Inspection Reports75-05r 75-06, 75-07, 2.

75-09, 76-05.

ASLB Hearing Transcript pages 789 to 1259.

j 3. ASLB Order Granting Summary Disposition of Contentions 2 and 7.

March 5,1982.

[ 4 CPSES-FSAR.

5. Affidavit of Owen Thom;rson Conte tion 7.

l

10. This statement prepared by: 1 l J. Tapias TRT Date

[ Technical Reviewer .

t

( Reviewed by:

l  !

i L. Shao.. Date Group Leader ,

I l Approved by:

i V. Noonan, Date Project Director K- 3

, y' .y. . .

. ~

, .a

, .. =c w , :.

x .: , ,

• y "

Q d' .,~*As 'b ..

',--,*g, O ,;,, , . *

.4 ,

- - ., 4 z.5 .4 n'

, 3 a* k*

N. . , *

• c ,

c '_ ~ .* ' . -

,a

./

'# w F) 4 (s 43*

b .*

. ~

.e. - 7

• 4'% w -4 s' C , , *,

J ,4 *

. S .: ~-

.. / - ,

?- .

c

^  ; ' "

T N. .

I*:  : . .

=

x .,

~

O. d '.; - M, y}Jy d'",,,.

h 8 ==

3 *. r-hfu

.- ,4 - -- ,

-6, '5 ^*

g .

2

{>,

b

(

y} .-

t x-

- 2;.

[ Sv.T N ' C ' r'o 'O b b-

- S,,

3 s-N

e. -

c s -

X \- C

, +n c +> r t

. .s 's . .. ': . , e 4 }

N M x:

N  : , 1 O

m 5 CO i ffws sw L oa

'y3 w s aRws m s x .

.=t_

j-g hN Q" X N e M  :

1~

W 3 -  %

/ 3 -

t ' t-- $-

&e. '

X Y -

W $ Cy

{ S

& <' 3 1 1N

n ,, s I

r's ,'

2, Q,f__  % +v

~

• 6

/ W, -

s M x

'; y 2 v% %.

I 't -

O e

~

e m.m . -c. n.n y n .:

m C -

& n l  ;

~

\\ ,-

s s. .,

o r,, b

• C I  % ~

- h#  ; '7 .

• ma m' 5e y .> .-

WA Mu -

q' g ' 'A J v~-

)

W ..

. e e

x 5 .r \o g i G. 's ;

.i \ T #61 o

, , b /i " . .

'3 ,

!, M ^1 W -

.) ',

}- .q -

i.;i .,

'A J

.) { j 4 4

?

g Q S

+- . .+ ee m. ee-ow - ee . . -== . +. ,.  ;% ,

na,gg n . ,, - ~

.n u vc

- -~ - - . . 1

6 'li,ig.<

^ -

9 w ., O -

• J , .,

- I g 4

• i

.-! I '* . h l I -

'i' N N

\

l a -

2 .

~,

i

, s) -

j - .

f Si

_.

g$wRy .Qa -

'u

$b- o

'T' kMJ ^

h o s-wygf w F

• X >

y 4

y >.i

.a~

1 g ,

t cy ow b -

3 I-_m'n eggerub

- '3 h

/ W O'aad  ! L .

4 ' -

{

e -. ? -$c . _

ee. Ikk (W

Mn] .

$N D. 2 1

i g .e * ;f we n

w2W

- W .,

x w

d a

a \o n\ . 4 3

..y

, 4-m a 3

< s *

\ .%

_ _ __ __ n ----.~ ---,n-n ~ ~ - , - - ~ ~ * ~ ~ ' " ' ' *

'^ '

'se -

7' t r- 1

_-*i .- .- - . .a. . L_ . . ..r.6.....-...... ..--.-.-.-......-1--

1 i

h 1.- '3 *

s. J. r .

w-

{ y .1 m

> a .>

~

s -,,,,  %

\n M " Q \

~.t.

l' '

Y s "

\ fM *

. a D -j

-vs- >

~

q s yO

?*

3.T-sfs \ T, '

~

y. y ,-3

\

x

__ J (  %$

vmV+ 8> a %c y

~~ ' -

29 4 h 1

f d .;

s~e

('

s, y - y,. , , ,n, e 21 s q

3 -i W , ..

-.252 . s AI 4 o4 1'

)~ ?

~ > hs us -5 g ~.

k o

r M

~ a vr 5 b.Ng3  :.

n C- 4

.b O

p.

a d w

,,s (O

s.

fbW - 0 9

.[. M?e ,,,

WD

\9 ><

' Nsv J

f ,U X ,

~. ,J 4% u -

,4s v "N g  %-

~

I %o *! T o ,_ s T-.> -

g si g th X  ? $ s E ;%

mys as f

-+

[

$f @. = #W ,= . v 1 ["'[ L z >E k

s. -

X 7 Y' 6,'

m  %- v:c - g'

- (&n.? d ~C5h,N

)

c. .1 .-

~ -f 3r MN 13 1

n x *J 4 m L ii g p. g < ,i +- 4 a e Y.-ryd fc ^ii?$ n

%g 4

~

u *

% k y 3

d -

,~A

,g i i r

} Gw%

I

@- N 9'3 > \-) M/1 V

ch u

q

k. 9

< < 23<

..' V.

__.,__,,.n._ --.--..t.. . ~ . .e~~e.w,*ew-=**--oo-~~* wo * -- "~'

• 42 Il lI !ipII!  ;'

c c,

m. .

u

- " ME s yc u

/

n

,. Z i

d a 3 p

7E s

/ /

e 7

(

. fy}ui e Lf l r Tgp P f _

h m [c u

. 0 ;(.

t Sr w e .

.db-{' Sg7cr A

s n _

. x 0 . 1

( /,

m a m c

A Wo pap x

1 U' o m y .

N c

y s p .

v. t 4

+ h

.L .

e 2

)

CX $

m m

e. 4(

o,

. L s

. u ut . u g X

h

. 7. .< .

Q /a,,j v s;

n x -

c P.uv a

hs j]Sl m L ,

e nt h (a e _

,. - (

c Lc

(

c J+v e > C s

( A

(

Q%

i, i

c

,'v , '

=

- 9 a

e

- M 3

MN

'a A

l 1 . s .  ! !  ; .;  :

E '^T d L : a . . _ . _ . .- .. .. _ .. - _ . . - . . . . . . _ . . . . . .

ps

~

~ t .

' x .

e h, 9

.% 4 g he R 'e#D I1@  % Ik l4N( h & g& .

h\t i

F j/-@

tf*"7+*#VD 4

d\b ?q

%N 3 N

d b.\  %.g D

a3 kM% ~;Q a1 it._v_ _ _ -

'tt Q  ;

g %W L s i 4 s iss Q u' \v. s W.

s

"'T8 * .-@3J ah h.>e

!l N i4 )s s is@o ya e a t

$ cy OtY 1

i U9 h R Qn Q-A r u-rse, s ey  :

u,s .-Q

%~m y , .

[Y'W x y , . . - c. h \

, 9 '9 *s b.w = 4 \

• (W wn? -

, 3 T '2 gsi 1 \

l \

) rwsh r2; 4 "Q

Nh3 A  % ( \

V d .w f -

_2 g bls kIs v_ r#

f g I o e

x N

) s  ; '

~

<sC.  !

$1 u- g 4 g

. N

_. ,. _ w" ' F *'

..-.a.L.....---

-,-a . _ . . . . _ . _ . . - _ , - . . - - . . . . . - . - . .

z .,

. P-

.. t .

A og

,s ..

,3

'D

[i

• E f >

1- 'h . - s.'- .

.i Ui ( 5 v o j a, E. y, %3, a

- . s . .

'4 3'v D

>% $ '6 E\ -

~

dii. - 1_.@ 7

'%)n

~

y  % & 'j1 .

.,tf*"/***V9 M$'ts ;1

.q ':

i L_ i --

j Os b  !

i g M Kwy-m. a o w

@ . 1 o 9 d 'd l N

.. s d W4'>  %

. s cu m e*-

(; A-m f .

Er m p k

E

\+a J M b>  ?  !

%e*C.

4 . - 9 .

)

b #D "

.!= Nk 5 l 4 c m +.1 - -

> y> s2 g O2 W W g

W 2LN

~

, 8 7 '-V-S.

\ e,sj i I t a

1. - ^^- m g  % ,O . d

3 yy O

wg 2 a

.)  :

- ui --

re e . su

- .- v ip \ Vy o

. y s-x 3

v 2! I y s l

\ '

" )

N -4 G

.t  % 3

%.> q g

, a :J e

mee.o= eve +4. gem., . , . , . . , , . ,w,_.s...,-,m.

.n _

h 2- . . . _ . _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . . + . . , . . . . . . . , . . _ - . . . _ _ _ . . , _ _ - - .

< q w W q

~

/ -

\\ @ l k ks \

w  % ,

%g k r Q g <.

ateupuagapuI  % 4

\ \ \

b[

23ediuI k I

spauas  % -

% h s \ i t' e (atunbapsul) siunpa3oJd

( gg s eq 3 - '

co SupJodag g \ T y s2;pny _ \ l .) j (3 'wk S iky

~ uopsadsul Qs, j ,) {

6 5 ok

~ %n ~1 b ~D 'k'%C l* 1 sB3N I

\

d SV gQ QM wi

%, %C 4 40o# f g g m Supsal g% u %e y' b. M 2' ,,s 2p3 g .u,o 's . s-+

t & a i

(*Luno L

> b 3 g &s %'3 k

9 2ao) L *%  % %Ig4 ~

Sulu[RJ1 g 4s%

b .. . . ..

(2LneA) g w g g

sPJo3ay g g ws a k ) y ,,. *D l

N LoJ4uo3 '4 W g '

ig g h

- ssasoJd p%p kkk -

(

b$ ,N

, u6tsaa

\

si3  % .

(

t

{0 3 4 h'%\k

~ g%

QEle

' N ~

l l

! c.% >  % 1

, g '

f

w wo-_w -- 'wd.

- he 4- ..M -.d'we 'h - a& .% -

..e.hhe--- --atam= 6 h e > --.- en a.e 4 e- e - wee '

• M , ~%

g

~ h M f

. %q))[e is . a lt s e aiJl m.m

$he X 4 Pg 4 ., j o j .t R'l

( Af 4 -(H) .NY 4

[f f

4 /> /3 - (ii) X , d X.I'I P3 't , ' o , ' t , "2 -N -- 10 1

}}j'i3 )( $, W h ,.,. .' - 'm E

j.

i

,n;_ w:., g &ctw / pc (u..m.h,g ; ~4c,.;#~( ') 4 d- 1 i

c.., ccc a 5yepw wN. c~-t . .ec .N. ~c,G..

t.,

.. -L, p @

r<(mam~k<aLic. . ,,

<f -l* r '"

<, (Da cE{ grc7. ,L .

, ld~~

0 o.. cor., 4, c - u  ;

c. a :. . M 1r t ,  ;

g /L 6<. ..e (w/ p . c c aa. n ce ) 4.,s..n.e m / u . {,

A P /3 -- 147 NV , (g)4 p! ! $C

~ % L a ,5.- a..cc . .. .e g

ze.y.:..y,+(+ ,J$ yJtt jl

- j2. . 1, . . y n... l ;. wna ,,,. f i x w ,, w c , a a. v .,,

u, a e p..

,, y..~/...a).A .~...

v . ~. ... a.,..

d. ,c ( -I., e.. u s.e

<,,.. i, .

v9lf-lnh iri y ,

c<- w b '~ ~ ~I d, lei' <r w " eI f l' ' 'I  ??h

~

~f s.4 .eJ +L . ( ^ m , ~ v r. 2 . , s,cl.,.g .y.Q g ps?

pidhpff%a-G .c - .. - c.,

.x) "'

&& pf jl l14 $b ti

,L.

y . . , e d., i .-c; s ,u f$

r r

_ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ __ _ __1

p- M _ ,_ . rs-am m -* ~ - * * - * " " ' ' ' " * ~ ^ . , . . . A v4*I**

I l

• N  %

'w N 6 6 D

m

. D .

r-

~ k I

J

! 4 Ms t %'"%.V%  %

4 A -

.A2 s  ?.

i a+g '

1 ! ce 'be~P'/

L (W "[

e4Y g

) e i

r_ a p

' %a w Y _K_'r_ '_

.  %. r.

?t g

• q

+

s s 9; a&

s

- M aD

• hb

,n ,

c .

ttM

iI+

\.f@._..W-a.

" cen) m .

Q- i o,,+

f* n/#&-$o . ' , -i

-' h a-,j Q )

sJ,r4 .

N xs4k. 4 4 di x -

> b* I

-- y ee

• m- mm -*w .

a

'M MA -- @ mh 'M ammeb. mw

.. .w WW ebwb e.,e h > rW,e., _e ehh, 4.ehk de me e eensha S%  % , e '$"%e. .,4 ain.hbb6 e 4W ' MN h M h a

'%M g

V s

' o l ,

/2. --

, k l -

9  : -

n -

- *%s' y

U d' d 4 N 1 L \

.e g I 't 'y 2h Ot W

e CQ 's i x 'i' W 1 1 f{

sga '

S ;* 'j' j y4h se

. Wm @

M

--r - mers ll M

x J )4 s'.

g%S i

1. 4 N -

h Me

d V xu Xh e e idit',xT's s

9N3 c

• 4 Ah k2 wh.

i cy ey 3

I, d< h ,w' ~

n s

a- y(e%

%v ga

' i i

t -

3 w -

l Qsi .FWM N tk2%j v '

W i

e(r=.mpow) + a.

d N

l'! ?n$b-t-  %%

te d2 jm de :' a:u%h

.5 g (em

\ Q o$

4s

'T a' m% e% m% } wN m s jy p g - b. 6  !

% g\e~ %kt %

mg  ; V)u h,

\

5N

-- s ,

l -.: $"A k b **

%)

~ ' "U

% q _

f e +  %

'n . k s

\

7l N Y m P

\cy s

~wi ,

j Q,. Y

,V/

r N % T T

• ~ E p

~e-m -..w n,se e. . . -. - ,- 6 .. .. .

e - - -

-q mm**----...m -._.i..- .,m g g-gi_ * : _ ;. j N

s s'.r

' I  ;

'4

!,

i m

s w

e. M l s'

r-

- sh s.1

. , f s

N 1,

bew l g s .* ! ,

Nia l #N k .

Ej'l.

e k +. N' wc-rm qy% '

( .1 t

1% Y

~e y

Nr 3

ni

~ N

<_1.

YY r O -

f

~*f4 x '4 ; "'q Y[,1?

o' vo in'Ds%? 3 ;9 s v

1 n ow '

%: 4.\ s d

hs

$-- 4#

(

~b .  %

y w

\

~3 y

O i '

C .)

i n - ' - s 5 -

3

- o-Y b 2 't'3 % ,Y>

J i( U*,tMP) i

.e v a.

' ~

3 L p (1 % sAdq.i t

! > j

. ~

h." W cen, -

s Jp "%'%

h g mPC %yd av e $ I'~ ]s  ;

o

, w;o ,

I (4 y5 '

~ '

4 s s~ N o v q  :

(

e\ g

\-

u i ,

g 5=r/

.s . ,

o e 1

__-...m.-2 ....-._, . . . # , ,

a M.+M - --

= E *.w h --

1. . .A- - '- - EE s -

..m ..me 4~ h m des d ' La. 4 % .s 1 '

'd[ eQ' eahhE N t.

9 a*

\g.

/

c sq ma y x u e &

w '

s z' .

'N' i N.f..

m

%T8 ._ z

'I

' s NP j ,

N .

ui 19 aN Vo j .

)

s I__ b v. < i bxN m, --

' 'b

~

.a .

58) y -i i

• d. \ a, N.%

.a N - -

Ck%

• (M en) ,

L

. N

/ s#%9 q wg

~*

^

4 >~ r 3 1%

A s h~ m

~

w\

sJ

~N h an $N ka-

! dk

^

% %f l l

,Ud ] i E -

, ..w i .

[ - - . . - - _ _ . . ... - _ _ _ _ . .

f g y ,*

h' ., an d .-~.u #mwM aww ~ss # .h . . A b. A b I m A..a _ %a A I

'1 c

~

19 m 3~

1 .. 1 E

• r > .

?.

• . &. 9 Y s j.r-1 c o v.

g O

3 $x m

c[ Q e sI i

'k

.- - y4.). J; s s ..

N 't .

C 1.

m enJ 8 " .D  ! b

,: sf Gryx Q. ,& ? _2r' TMf .

t Ma'(7 dei > 1 5

c .:

k 1  :

i .1 k

~

aan \ -

pm Q

sN b b) M c

.N o

xs <a n&k.jk . i u, sfx

$& a. ~

s .

w. a ._

x.,L

> u f.==.,_ 5 Yu

q b~p& h X X N s~6 Y4 v g$

s ~

hk

'\ l 3~d\

~

' 3 -

\'

NW 9 cND

@NN 3 < x.

1 pU j

e. - c- i o Mxc ss d Q" ai+d e.n t Nh h l' m

." n~6( P en?

M a$% 4 $ !hqh} '

(n Y

g' q o o oJ f Wa -

s g A 4

g I J 3

d g r.du- k L1 3 ~

mk> R '2 -5 4

• 3 of

, 1 *5, e 13 C

i

~'

(t g "nI3 eM egg g

a 7

• T y 5tT y4dtg . f[#c. 4,.J h t h

.g j

4 \

• *. MS' dk x g

• f 3 5-

_<_ ---.-ew-*w, - *

-.-.-y

. , - . - - , - -.~,_ y g .7,-,ms.,y------ --

-+; , ;

p-*"

___,c;___,.

, _ . . . . . - ** ~ " " ~ ' * * * ~ ^ ' '

1 l

~.

e y

l c5 ?e){ ?b% o e-

~,

3 .o

• 4 b, (N

k

!s x 4s

)

l t e Vm /

{ *a'9- t  %

i aD k 4 \d Tr$4 , ,

A .1. ii

, U %3 y.

. ._ v y9 w .

N a

! W -)~ a

>( y M

2 c' $

..g Q' l ui, da '

N y7 .-

Afy x4 ks ,N f( 'O Y m

repsw

~

e'y tM<j y$ e iNI A ,

g , . vCL

- }.k% w=. q 5m) 3 ~ %. $

"[W n' dg%

i fir

• RWA) . 5  % 4 t{ ue 3 -Yoo

! ' 9 s 2 +1 v

mg q < >

~

s

=4

-l .

.- re d .

y

~.

n W t (T

W D g .~}

V P

w * * * * '

• f**g 4** - * * ,

a -

g .y-

, y - - , -- .- -

M e e, + aC8Y e b e*=*#F*r'*h*?*'%* * * * ' - -

W a

- s D a v

.s,

' R

,)

E 6. .

E kT w e It L

M s tN N

g% 2 t

%Ok Nsq g D

Y. Y & & Q w".  %

3

-W $ '

enA 2r s

o i W "vg N W 9- $ $m 4M .

%m

% q 4.

W 9  %

J_  % $

Ih, j 3 k i

19 9/Y vo Q L k g$ 2 m

N

.I 9 v L.

R %= ]a ~

x a

5 %N h 4 \b yE f@ W)

y. =,,= , w2 31 m2 D z Y

N $ -

T &

" cem ec

%.:g n -

m w- .A w

A

,+

M }k me I

%. MA no z s, a $ T ' %

'y x .

C b  %

gs -

p i

.o co -

O

! N

% q R O

. . . . - -_ 4.- . ..,.,-,-e-mwe- . . _ .y _ ..w,.-, .--...m-ww%=...%.e.,

. . - . . . - . . - - - _ ~ _ - _+ _ _;_ ; : ~ ,_ _ ;

3,3_3 ,, _

a 4

?

's , y

~

s  : s h I- I,j, i h @N 2 t  : -

- .E y ] (g

'l i ->.

z f* \

)

h w . 8

~

5 -s

e s 4 1

l x

(c x M~~;

I

g=;.gy4

$ vg > i q

'c M k N

.y

. c ~,

dik^dr- .N \

m@w J4 '% <

4Q  :

\q xq Y E'r ~ k. .% g Y

[%* E' 3

a ,~ L f K -

'"*II 6 p$

5 ji9m

~

d V

) ,  ! 9 d i /1.

,  ; # cy oy s

} 3

[_A i < a

@5 &

i N'E a L .

frykrw) 4 1 - =-

y d i w_L ~

4 u .3 $ .o

- ( & n.? .

~

s. $. ~ . ,Y .

\

}

i- 4 GG

$mg \ $ RT i

i- M, - .

).

w .

N

'f fi g J.

o 3-nq m '

> ') 7

& *b~ k q x<

0

'** ~-'

98.9 m **7 *um -

'wgw-.e--r.. m, y  %,,,

.- ;. u d -.a n a m : 6 +_ ' ...=.;..~.=..-...,..=a Tl

• a  :

a

~~.

t

c'

\

e > )

1

. N sC. l

""= '

s

(.

M4M i%; / %

..9 a .'

\ ,

4

. , , 3

'A Y

=c?l, W"J"f W N ' .

l M f Q l%,8%

' 1 e

a-._, .

4 w.- .

y< , . Q

. s N >f 4 I J va

-a s d kD \ l t 9ou y ., s I \T  %

Q,W /

GA u.

1 i W ~'h 'M

~

bQ t g(m WM 43 k

%I% Q

% .:/

~

_m_

f f ' # $.O M -

? \

P. L ; W-1- \

. 3, e -

G '

U-l# %i $ h g  ;

ei -

$ gr' O

% 4.  %

I h.. Y E .

.. -.-.=c. , ..ww...p., , m m .*- * -- ,,. ,. f-, , .way..u+ww---.=~.- ~. . j

, . >,e _qj em ,g , , - ,.4 - .

, e

. . - l .

'- ^ '_ um .bAa,Jn' *-*'s. -

4Lb ' ' bS. e -fe m%e t aas am..-+-...-~-wa-~e:-*- * . - - - - = - Da

• 4

. 7

, N.

N  %

1

~I.

c '%

b )

a

\n a

s.  %  % .

A \g d

N s 'K

., xs x nca% w% .

'N h )

. . s 2 M* c9 s 4 l i a n +r -6

{4 Tt -s eat A k -

I wn m, y 5

' &q m .

~~E _1

\ J. 3 f

%$ pi "f-: yr dD -

s a w, .L_. EO*"

CW 'y k [3  ?.

sti 1

-v s

'd a y e  %

m w

$9 x ,

9

- d }%q f, m, x N Q _ 1 1 -;

m -

4 .;

wya y u T %, r ,. 7) 3 (r ..z . nc.

y=ykrev wqha: i 1 -

\~>s ~=s .-

L

, p'm w 'g. .

• \ M' M

"(W

,. 7' '

3

$T t

. s .y

/ s#4-9 q,wg M i .

e . --d I

• E '

Q ,

i 4 A y 4 w

• a, l

A -

, 9 * ~

ml g , <t g <

• uss're ~**- * = eney, , w q,yse,-p, & em .- -..%,. , . ,-,,.--.,,,,,.,,e.*-m- . ee ., w m m.m e,. .m ..=w-- e ee .. . 4

- , : y_ --, ,- , , .yu. - .e -

= -- = - -- -

. m._,_ a . .- -w ,

.. =-_.7.__-__..._-..__.._-_

. c.1

, c.g o,, N 3

a J. c j

Y; ",

'm 1

i .J j N- $

!l k

,O '

s if  : 4 3 3- * .

_t #.

"IJ e 8 j 'M N

'l Q v4m '

N -

M

~ h~ \ -

~ ,

hr 0 -{ u .

a' i

s<<Q=h m ao !trd sy3s o

f a y a \ _i, i

1. ! >< d Nqy, i

( m)

W@~ ~^R Q- ,

_)< K y ,

- Cen) 1\ t .

=

WO tw

k V

M

}" _

'k ki3/ .3 '~4w~

l W 4  %

1 w __ ----- - -w - --- ------y-~~;_--------------- '

, 4 . . ..,; . , , , -

_ _T " = * , .y", .

iN O T .

h 7~

g7

, p

. , ~

'" Y sh )

~

L be 4 c>

i e M

a jb

- t n v ; _+wr

~-t 1

4g w .0 3

~ \ e cWe 3 M hjb

~

oy M g 3 23$

W 'Q

~

i d VD 3 a,

i. I FS 9/Y R d i Q u I 1

$ M1 r e-v , s %e E M')

eJ m a f  %

g m 3 *CL

%>< $v

. - e f

ma '

o l g

L t 94

u. re .

b

!@ n1 b 9 c

y.

4

% g

'ej- T q w) .

{ <

• . ,-e-=gw..w,, .m mysopese . .

%eme ms . . . - .ew .% .w- --ee.~es..,p --- e ,e

e , ,

w- a y 1 y4% , , . -

,, f - . _ E .?

4

=

..--j-- u - ,

.- y - Sasli A..L,; .. , a.  :'_,_.._.,L Jam - :_+

~

e T

g

• N

=

w.

~

~

g **e s

m t .

'i E

\'

ED x s!'!k, N,

I 4g a<%a x . vh g 4" a i

O a )a .a stk

! ~

19 aw pa Db

+

f 6

zy q

3 k 3 cm n y =.6 + :2.

a, e-4t

-(w n?

i '$

.I

• W wk

\g k s

lWO

. . Wd ui --

,r r y

%sq g 1-D q

x -

~~ s

-a J r5- Q D

~N a T \@$ Y 1,

3 g '

V o  ;

O t d.

E l 0

.____,._,.-n.

g' . . ~ , ' ~~~ ~~

~ ~ ~ " " * ' ~ ' * * " " " ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~

2. .,_.J

{

,- ~1d

_.X;c' ~ ____ .

w_ _ _ .m ._uzi-_ _ ,_

.s &

• CT any

)

y" s

a c C

6- j

. J 1

,~

e a c l

a -

Y 9y s l lDW w~

I Nd . l

(? A q, 1

. g .

- Q 9 9 . o

= ~ N i

l b e x '

- W*"/***V

@ 7 " j / - @D :I

.' s O .

4) 4j  ?  :

<__ 9,-

~~? s%3 (a s

w a

w'4 w:r 4 .

rp

}

a ~

,e m vi i.. % 1 N.

m l *

• cyYd .xYu  % <3 d Q y <. m x c a ee1 u )

o-J e

A-%

IED fha '

p'd crpree

, e =c + a.

g g:

5 5G1 .

a

, .a: e -

b)

\y' y q $

% t 'Ta &

l"W 1 0

,,m ma jQ s 6 o pt T d

d.a .~ ,$

A b m N

p y

m N 9@

1. 1

) .

4:' 4

. .L ,. T N x .

T <

e

- N*- - __ .e- -.-#-w- . - _ . , . . . . . _ , . , , - ,__

_ , , . __ , _ , p\ O - +a--- -

s---

- - = _ ," _ . ~~"^'"-'.~...L., ,

i n m

~

\ d-  %,.

h p .

r a ~ , u s.

n  ;

a V< Ok

~ Z (S$  :% l s 2 S: s

S F c s. \

- ~

\ f k N  ;

xg Nh N.%

.% \s y

• t <

k e -

g l k h '

QQ

=

%W j

\ g%.

f

(

, " NM /

i "D 8.D e

N [di s . n e

% .\$e

-#u2

$. N.

%c,

".FT;~5 m

'N < ; i N> @1!ia4 h

~~

$ x ky ' '

'\)

v a '

~ 2 N w

ya a.

\ iv e

9 0/Y ze,du3S # p.)

n TNd'Ei ,

yN W )X Do }

f W.) E

,  : c g'w .so .

. e@wa. ,

J $7 i f dg lK W Iho)

-ltt3 'y ; n 2 :> s 3- va -

j%.4d 3 .

s

Q :;,so E& 3

~

etng 7 -v-9

,a -

-W ~ . ,

v f

as + -

> 4e

• f N &

fN k

[- .

"-'~N*- *==ee....,,, 4

%R% % %..g,,

-- ,- + ,,y, , - . - - - , , - -, .

.___m

• v.:

. _ g. -t 1 .

ft .

t.- ! - ,,-

_, ;g

~

.j ,

M .

=

,G bA d

M

.L  %

Ds

] _

,f '

T

.- l .

N d.

a e k

m 3 .

(%

ci

. w~L s ._ - yM <

WW ')"

M, T

J.

NY 43

~

j v, .

s 3

' a 4 C Q 'Y ur{

a ycr=prn .R HL -

.%>a ,

"(W

. pn] 1

, A

. !. M i 7v

/"-M f./ __

ii g a g Wh s N

3 N 4 X

s  %.-r#

g _

DI s')

M  :

N).(\ b k T k X

> 1

} f

_ , .,_ . . . . - . . . , - - - . - - - - - -~' " ~ ~ ~ "

~.,

)

.E: i M i - L' ( I

,r lM

'M 1 5

,'g-1 i

d fp

_ ' I' ?

n f' f1 'N a,

\ u~ ' o i

r "'I'" !w ,,I b

,U K  ;

i w

n N e pe

<w0'SI'e.,

,0ck

,f' i

l M

wP

?I O 1

J.

- x e m

s s Af

'u {I 7

pC yg fr "'f u t

'V' wI g lg o.

n N t , 0tI

~ l 17 e

pv x ~ v y 'c ll 5 .-

, v.'

N w p, c

( cha nu 2 f.

~ i c

. kg l

, s N C~4 .

• it c

, s;% f a -

2 k

/

u

~ 4 o

. +Q. d fL

.L .

.c y e, k e

_.3 m

n v

. sw e G

~%

1 a w- -

) ]

2 e %ga-

" f A

w v

e w

e J  :

• jl ,f 8 I . ,, j

~

. h9  ; '

p 44 ,f.

' "i

- -

• 3 r---

+,,' - -

'2- .m.4._..,_a a. i,l- .m a __ _. . . .';. a,

. '[4E f.i ' .J+.

__a -n..._, '

N l

$L 1 s , o

)

I e.

't g

f fi D4  ;

x u s

. 2.i0 i e s

L 7 H T d \ 6%

j v l'!. ,y - .M

• j\"

3 l

7 jy$ 1 y J

g j / 0

%n N5 w

-M W~ -

(k9 t

gf $ >

,N, j '

m

e-% gl  ; .t  !

lD p  ! p .2 Y Yi. ;

1 ai%ns .

dy%'+4--

s 4 (e ~ .

." D 35 -

% 3 M K

b j A

$c , .

i m .,

3 1

Qr ,,e 61 4du ~

h.

( .

b ( Q '*c s.) ]u

$ g\ a' 3 Ytx '

1 e m .va. .

,d O

.J i

% s- a-

• 'h $ 4

• (m 1

. phy

'. 9 'tl 30 w s g"j % Pi '

o j a s AN4 c o f

\ #

l M~ . ,

Q M l

. i i

o g d

a1, a g ,.

l I

Y *

[]

W i id/g

> , n

l.' l:. 'Y. _Y '  !,' ..;,_. __d ~

-s -

.xw. :id Ok E' < -

c 4 F

N C.,,

q g #,

l C 4 p Y

l I 3

.>T 1.-

' '3  %

• . i 3.;%

[ - f'o s \

._i,

' } ' ye,

- 4y. s u

. .r 0 s

!4 rgh- y/ >; F. tl .

l yiew

{N@1N @<

l%

g -

a, n -

qKr; e

%4

' '~ 3  ;

i L M 4 jy+ry-ng b w V.. 6< y .q u<

(

h

'l y[ ,, I Nw W

ss e

' b N 'b ,

$ cy Y -

d h NI _  %

f f <

4  %,

V%  %

s \, n,1 1

\ .

~

M u

3 y J

! W -+i w_L # J .;

' ~

a x

~

k cr x e 9-s O

n' m) x~

qg4i d \lt i gmNO

• hI

,o l

M.a

.- - c, ~

> l

• \p  !

r b -w -

" > l t

\ w

[-

p & l l vi w

~ ~ * * - . - . . . . _ --

- :~ n .__

a

, y_

w "' .. '.. .: - , .."*

"+f ! .\ >. - y , - .

_ ., p I

.I i

Y I El t

, :s! .

~

2%

b '

n ~

g .q t 4 Q.

- Z 0 E

' At T t

, ')g  %

+ t

' Y $

i f <

v; gvg w o

- ~

si

'N "

h 5 '[ $

f %D @ Aus ~n 3 l $

h 1 -

..)}- .

t n ory .i gs 4 l

, g , 2 n .;

i y/.mxW Ps

! .D +

.,:::a n

j vm m ~

__t

,e C e n> i  ? .? .

W . .

j~ ^- -

j i "O n 3

1 M

w ,%--

-u

! n1 -

rt  %

M .  %\m 4i N 1 NA l *! I O-1 M: -4

4. .

X l\ M i K Q G7 i s

. e p wg , - - . . .,-.-.-e--w-+-.,..y.

- - = - - , . - . , .,e,,

,g - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - -

' sie eM..es M _ _ _ -

e.a' -- .L-.4-...=e.e- -

). [-=*-- - ^****-=d*'

1- _

%,,o r-g\

t- --

w X

+

.o. -

Y 4

1

- \w-y

~

k

,s i _e_

-0.-  : ix v; _s e x  :

n f . e.

lr D M qN 'i n' '

l icw 4 m 4 y4 ym

, s -

' 4 .

i a  :' '\

r_ _4i_xrfi -a w: ,,G:

a  %. -

c

~

\

$ ih -

3 4 eq@., ]6 )i J1 1j -

VD ao N< 4 u 7 s '

3

! I 9 'D/V i ,3 g fi

-s

!g M X /- %s. y i 3 91 ( N  %

)'T3 \. 3 I

~ g -s r +1 -

b% 4y Q .,

3 N

q y (% - &n)

~

kbk $k ~ s 1

g fw ,

x-.7,wg

..i , #d.

ur_ . .

\ ~.

u t

T k. -

~O C3ON 2

o g,ss A<  :

,m c$ d _~. t< v< <- ,

,z

• L/

_4= wee *w w g ewin ent=ew e w ye- w g-e- +- --e+--*'-e -n ge -e-memme , . . , , , , . . . . ,

d

-r- ed E o .y.!

& 'd . _ _e m{$ e -

56l4x a

5.

e .

l Ys t) '.4 ,.2

• g n T N

% v; ;- reetw

! & 2/c,s se b;  ?

gj 3 T '.-

.s .3 .a y

, u \ m  : . M GM i Ni.

e hi co-r-": -:rfum! w Y

s

&"' if N V1-d I '

l k S

.!(' k-

.- . , ( v 4 3 ,su s, u -

Em O '

C 7 J a I

• j $ \ % l

' 1 -C *f f+i T k^ l e

J"j 1 vJ N os I

q .

1 Q~

Wr4v4  % 'i.3 b.N %-r8 'h .g k-3  :

n# s ? Do. c u~p

{

• s N V-2 i

' N si '%

- tv) M D x 0  :

L.

N. , ., v

~ M g' %'

Q R

,r_(W_ ""r "$ 3 Q V a -) L.V g i' ? E 2 A N: ;. d M ,

6

+ .. .

"yW

?  % x P' 5. 4 (e Q

' 'Q j, i

1. M t

$d $' ,.

N} l$2 i) .

~

~ u- --dn -:  ? ., .

(p rog '

P. ,; o -

nu, yt ,.

' W ' M '"l ~

? b? k j :? ,

"W c&w

~

&' M l'A E (& R b. h'j '

? '%j I n )? .

e =- 1 1 'i P '.; ' ;' t 'TS l s

)W O' 4 '

a 'o J r

-t g c

- W*

-l h3 ~

x s.

w h m_ ,

- (Fjd

. 2 c

~a -6 J

u

~

D 5 g c + m \

O m-

%k h

'J' , ?)

.T ) 4 ua - %.-

s^

~ s. 5 9 3 E "

4 (. -< l . .< <

3 3

< . a 3 a ( " ss-3 g 1 I < -r h .

e

• 4 3 ^

• " - . y , ,

• . ,-S

' ' - -=*==-~=,ba-, , _ .s w .m_ _

, )

DJ

, c ,

O N _ C,!

4 ^

,j 2.

J U n, -

2 s., .

J *

e. 4 N

< y .

r t j w]

Y l 1 l *'""w+4 y%M ;N-31 9 l

6 ,

3 4

, -,t, m

m

. m.: ,

h.t As

,dY k k q- ~:

y -.. . ,

49 M .

v u n ' a a s z  ;\Y i "*T[. %a pf G N N . ,

i d# Vo 7 7 -

2 m r) cy ou A s to d i

Q:7 D

~ ~ J d

• .' O-1 4s I ,-,_

_ _ _. , yt s 3 t

aq-e -

u 4

r% -

> a lcz v4 3 .

UhC D) 3 Q N N: b i ll W@9'~ '* C- _

.:I j y ;..

g'

'j U wn y; ) q v'

H "- (m)

- L 1 '.

Q1 m J $ m+  :

5

l. -

lWG /*4 %

[

pdd d cJ e  :

Li , M.~.u C iJ u I .

A

i .A i . P l r- .' c-

'a' ll )! k. i  ? ~~

2 '

lh'&

1 d L

T

.c M

3 (y

% 4 l' V fj-p

~

1 I

c-- _.c._ _ m._u_2. w sa.m.n I

I  ;~ Si y r. -

l i W -

\

q' T )k h

7< Q .N3 x

=

i8 \s ageupuagepuI i q

,k N' *sedal  % Q D%

stJauas yD.

hhDh *Q m (agenbspeuI) b N su npasoJd h MQ $kq \q \\

f. l so Supsaoday T S25pny kN 4 gs

\y M

s

, 5N.9

% uottsadsut k \

, 3D N i y 1 st< b 'i s @

, n j

T SON I I

. Suits g L c3b~ - ~

- t 2 i .

N

%y . gw .. _

\

.A yy \@ %

.  % l r

( teno \x ,

. , v 22 3) O x l

Susutu.t Qrw % (y w%

__ A_ g.% , Q-. _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _

la (2tneA) s'  %. A. TX spaosau -

W Gy

!'y toa2uo3 (Qhb  % 4. es.J as 2uaansaa s

AM 3 l

- ssasoJd

( R NmND \~4~N~  %

r u6 tsaa

~

k h '( y WN.\b N  %%gQ ~~

'4kg R

~

Q 2 .

h

.ig Q%G s oa s. ,

T

..._:_._ . ~~ - rc_ ---~r- :rr - - ., ..; . v.._,

• g

' ,4

, F Yb ,

e ,

he- mm w e.4.. '^

h-me=== e'(m ..g =

a xS. .

y

- 3 s

\s: q.

s ,

( '

p 4 \

,  : cw l

.h v\s

r. '

.b g l d b. b

' l Ihh

• i u .>

~

.y

~

N 6 i }6 g

t s >

I s

9 i$

MV% ~

E

% 'e 1 N)> 2 o t 't-~;-- s d j

i If h- -

-s- i m _ Y.2 c 5 NN 1

3 D'b 1--

3 w

I l

f

, e*"/***w WS * ( g  !

a  :

g's.*O ,4 u sb U-5.Y

> I' . ,

E_ _ _ i .

$y

? bY ~u r 47 .

Ls .- s

$ h ts ~g .

. J Qc w 6 h

g Y ,T - 3 h  ; \

d

• J -

& \,n I s C s

y i L S

, j ilc9uer ~  %

frykr y) e m +c.

r }\@fP7 v ;P ; d f N U- ~ 2-

- en>

.(M

~

(, 3 3.b V 4' L~c 1sfj Q t e JK o

4 nl g s,, af>t 4 ,wm .

6 ai4 daO j { t-- -

NO M, .

f@ %$

$- k qTh p n e e

>N O o s a2 SM- y l q I l I N. ,f m. ..D. - 3 3;3 u ,9 d. .o M at "k h

. r-a q dro * \ \ -do, i -lW

? <* .s e\ 4 u &TmJ- p .U\& s

..e-I 4 * -;. 'T h . .,3 e MM f5 T

- A co a &

xQ w g .

a-ew--- e.. , , , ,

3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . SHEET i GF 5 g j 'Q,w. h atasee.

8 c,, "%

E= 5 Allegation . #- wm 8'* .o en g

c

.g g Sy E,

,, ,,, 3 or Category 8,l0 82 l'S cJ7 $ g, Oh $ "a b%  %

No.  %" BU 8E %5% E uE "E 25 EE I!

af as a e. Ass 't

.a W e- -h - -- - -

[

QAlac. CM.8 AQ.-50 K g ,

K 2. [

I'

1 .

yTOGCo in.saudiod OI-OP-IIll-l ,

, \,Jetwte.s. bh noT FOLLoto BRid Det* DINGS OE 'En B. R 9s?OUEbuRE. D5-OkD-II.I-$0 p V

'l

.! 'i2ESOL11N G i ta UNbEE. SIZE. WELb3., EXCESI'vE OMbER. COT, ExcEIIlvE 'EOROSIT t , .$  ;

' l, EyXRnatoui \dEthiuG No1 ou THE beAtuiuG, EXCE.ESiuE. CRigh2MG iN Miu(MOM TNickNEI4 l

\fioLnvice4 Aah CogFICORATiOp CNANCC., 07HER '

UM ACCEATABLE tdEth GEoMEr2Y, Aah FA/Lus2C 'i'o M arirv IO C To i* ten n r ^n h Sir-r4 u.JELb L ATA C A Rb .

• l1

'REFEREu ct.: Q A I Q(_. SSEE , A G-50, TABLh. 2 bOALW'1 CONTROL IH10EcTioM FAlluidG ELEMENTS Aub FINbiNCI !,A L FINLURE. To REPORT N0t4 cot 4FORMeHtE s To bEAtoitJGI Ac4h SPEceFi i 1.* .

j

• DC. SIGH YlitOCESE bEFiciEMcIEI. ARL _fHotod IM .E E C.T iO 4 3.I hiSCREPA4CIES NOT RE.PocTEb bbe*aG AS-BoitT UERIFic.MIO*4).  ;

i

, 50 F0lA-8 F I

p

, . , , ..A . . _ . - . . . .

i

!'d i DO

• w I -

u.

O T <

ej 3 t

7. *x $ l C () i ." fU G l N

daw

[ C '

b' .$

d p

4T W

w eu YC P+

o

= s. a du. A) < z -

n g

.#- f.::. O '3 w d W WH

.,si d: 2

, 2 h _

O.

c. j !<$ k 9 2- >

~ '~

M '

.9 I .5 ageutuuagapuI d HT d x .- -r N D]e w c 3 goedtuI 4

Q 'd ' .b J  % c'1 O l

. _2 s-'

opauas J e# 4 2

3% d 3 V 5 bN

• AE $

cn (agunbeptur) . b b saanpasoJd y <h a.

,&u '$ h M ddc O ' 1 4 d vi r uj oa 'o 1- Ur M c' co SupJoday H Q 7 ,

.y

• b f s i 521Pny

_) f ggg , g F

.g I CV2w O M u e 5 d w

• uopaedsuI & 4 _j .;*~ < M ,3 ,d3 2

.s E j e- g ,

30

$.; g, gm ~s>j{,E Ig d u a3 t r ,;

q- .3 6 3 4ai v3 eH2w' 2 u. g a .s e suan .2 G . m G. uu c ul u gL s. 2 2 ;=

97 oa 3 W 2 35 Sung (ypgt5aa e 6o1 M q

C- 4

.g e 9 i9

!*g 4.$

M h q U CG h

1 7 r2 => F ,

(*Lano & $ 3 [ g CqA l

,r 9 2aag) 93 p2 .3 OfGU! "g w $go W 'g w >T .

Su)u)RJJ, 2 g u ,C l 3 .g f 3.. mg . . g_ '

.d Oi .._..?U '.} [ .. _ .

I

, O y . f < .;.

u '

< 'o w c_ .t )

" (2LneA) .;

U,; 3 (; y c; ,

spacoag .8 8

< JE -

a '

g f ] u.ggp y

• ( 2w @ }g )

m Loaquo3 w ca g og g o. u;y la 2 d ge A w _

<,c .5 quaunsoO C 2 N, WC a /!w v1 b.N 6

m u' m u. .a a -

9y w ;s -

1

.2dM '# J 'I 2 #<E

- ssacoJd V z u oo -

ustsa0  %

A o., m, a g(L g1Y d (J P , .yjc x eD C0 W uh4 C 1 *-Jg 'N .gh ,h 2 $u o& - J ~3 G $ t.

% f, 6 <C ,bd yh T u <

'2j

.d d ga, . 00 W H M .d 4 w gul yeq uer d u_

u gwdd9

<oe did

-i .

a-d * .

G" .

e

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

Ll^ i -- - ...- - .C - - -- -- -------L-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~

a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 51\;tt 3 of $

g y 5...G~,2. G4 e .a u c O M g4 Allegation m t- .- E .a o, L *O u "E or Category 8,2 E2 l' % c47 ** = l-No. 8e SE 3 g" $$ 3% 3 ,g $

"n g Q%

am &E g $ og gg Ec c E

88 s-8 r =5 o~ <= a- S ~g ~

a M a c c ur.a x ACA-5:0 ,

@ <2_

1

i j .

i 4

• CluALW1 Corci?ol It4SPFc.rica r FMLEb To 'i2EpoeJ iusTANCES OF Hi1S EN(a  ;

] H ATERint [ PART ibENTIFi ATioca '

l Mobat t40uaENrasvnu.c? .s cabosursrs bib Nor h1 Arch DRAW /N4 MATEe;A

. sect'os '.

l

' \liOLAMod oF ~Bs2 19.sTRulT;oM OI- O AP-Il.1-2.8, MArcnkt rusay;piteniM htiluieaid~Tgr[

Aab TuCsCO 1alTRucTio.q ' CP- EI- 4.5.1, Geucent Pitoctene ron. AI-Buict Pipiac t/Eei- '

Fic AT.lo w . i I

i h eet a cE.: Q.A)Q.C CNrEcoty $ SSER. AQ-so , # A&c 2 '

j .

'bE_GGu DRoc.csqhTsuj 2ng;c; tac;cs act . shawn in SEcTiON 3.l i

lj (FAILott. To TREC OC=N12C biSLRIIi>A buttIW6LiEl AI-EuiLT t/ER.iFit A7i'?ro FOR P!Of SU44012r.s}

i t

i

.  !. t t;

i.!

.I l

~ -a _ - . . - .-.-~_-..,.....a-..-.~_aa-~. -.a.= . , . - - - -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SHER._T A 0F S e ~~.

g # R.Us. P 4,i 6r,.S see, 8 o, "t 5 .,

, Allegation . #- .- E'* .b t *3 E 8- o E or category 8, g ge U  ;;;7 .5

• g st i .g tt 3 No. .u gy gg g s. g u y g. ;g g g g .

8? 88 at kE8 qE',g M6 t'r5 28 a. .' 3? E l.

- Oh lDC. CM.8

(\q.39 X @ .

.x X 4 -

Q- 12

! 44 L

.1 i

i .

l

• CR AFTs bib e4or otLEcut. MWWuM TlhtEAb E.i4 GAGE.nEuT C.6teci A.5 REQUEHd Of OlcoRRENCES. SOCGEir DOTEnTiALL-l GENEi'.iG ThtOhlEM OM OMIT N I SHORBERS.  !.

I'

,! , REFEeEract.: G. A 10.c C ATEG OR'l 8 S S E R , /40.- 50 , TABLE 2.

s

l Ckt. LAG'T9 C.OMTROL ht4 SPELT'Oa FatLufcE. ELEMEnn ARE FOOuts in SEcn'on 3.9 -

(FMtoRE To couroreu To T/lc REQuiREuent.s oF A.5ME fEcffo,v.TE NF-471)/

I! e DESIGN iMOCEis. LEFiciENLiES AEE. SHotud iN .bCL.TiOM 3.8

'1

.' 'Lhtk or FIRM hE.G64 hiREGJiOol. HEP 0v.T'aG. of insurFicisny rllRcAb E,4GAGCMCtJr is AA- Twitr t

L E E,iG H UER*Fi4ATIO45 f5 houB7fut).

a 9Roctb uRF.

, O'J~ O AD- .I1.1- 2.R l?Eu. 2'.5, AT7/EllMEMY 23, MAY counicr Wr5 ASME ]}I, N D ,

i

.  :~

l .

i i

I ti

, ' l

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2Aktt 5 0F S --

a,

},..w.ito....c..c.c..2:,;

g g 8 m *% 5 Allegation , t!- ,_ g e .a ,,c, 7, ey [ g. , g or Category 8,0 32  ?%

E p.;;;

.5 M 01' i-8 Its 3 .

o gg gg +4g y g gg g g=

No.

? ;58 4; .

8 88 a t. 4 q52, M6 85 RM a. = a;? 5 Calac cnT.a g y. y 4 .

I AQ.- 50 9 [

~

l H

• DESIGa FAittb To couTeot beviwrfos FeoM (Aunu ry STAubAths, Ash ~pEnsTrch

'Poss Bbr UcasoirAatt. Appt(c4Tioa or MATsef AL Aeah PitocESfE5 TO SMis FY REOuiRE.-

i MEuTs Fort LockiNC= 'bEdicEl 04 TdEGAbE.b FASTcuiERS.Tliis PicollEM it 1)UIE" riav_v. j C, E P :ER c. F0tt Undr d'l PIPE Ioepors.s.

e I

a KLFe.eence . QdQC. cArec,oev 8 SSER , AQ- 50, TABLE _ 2. .  !

j

• DESiC=t4 TROLF SS hEF[C[iEN DES, ARp_ SilOu>d in .SEcTi0,1 3. l . I i'

e QuAtiTf CoaTitoL IniPCcrion FAitueE_. p_Lo ttirr.s ,mt. Founb in der.Tios 3.7

'(FMtm To Ibtenipf Hitsiac Lode:wc bEuiCES) -

f n  :

1 i i l  !

o i i I  ! l

[r

u.o._-. __

t

. _ _ . . . . 2. . . _ . . . _ _ _ -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 / o/ 2

- S .. 3. c . , . .

c m0 E Allegation * &* O *E E

}*

or Cat c" ~

U O *^ *E

• U "U E *h ## I h- 00 5 '3 E Y *IE & E- #5 0 "" 5N Y

~

8ae 88

= o Mm ea-n8 2$n: m6 x

os a~

=e Ra es a-

=

3e ~

Q A D L CAT. 8 50-A45)B4-26 X .

7- -

R .

i f

I

' !- f 2

j.

I 6.c iss9tcToe s. FAi'cw To RERoeT mp as iSSi""

3"" """ "i' "I'"" '4 ~* "~

U

• i l\L LEC, Os Tuso C Ant.c._ Tstiba54AdhEndse i cN,Ti.\miti MiltielG Ag C, TJE.ftli Ctt s u) \AJEt3M t-4 0 t Cor t er i nit. F :, i>J ACCOR- j-7 bnsct tuiTR 1RIWieJC EE QUIREMEt4T.S.

{

j' e l '

CRMT3 FAILEb Toj FAER'icATE ' Ash INST /lLL lra AccortbArJCE. LUITfl ~DROLUia'lC ihE ~ l-R6sREMENTA .

i i,

, P I <

e i T<EFEREt4 CE: LETrde,10tkEt dO. 50-4 4 5 f 84-26, 3As.18,1985, SeccinL IMSPEc -

Tiod ioF Ti' .SAFEGuneus nub AwritiARY Ruithiu6, incluhin6 : i

. APDEfthb 8, hjoTicE OF UioLATiod, SEcr.'on 8 PAGE 3, ITEM 5 l. 2., Ash '5.3 j

l .

i -

! f.

ii , -

! i  ?

g, ii-

! I e

, I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7 or Z e c.sa:Eo,.ww6en .

c m8 E Allegation * ** 0 *E E" }* b c" U "

• E a U at b 2* f "h

or cate9 '#

e- S' 8  !

"i

==

k's S t' .

• e8-

+B y m=

E. " t; m

es bW c

8ae 88 M w8 2$n m6 x a~ 23 a- 8 ~e i

~

QA\QL CAT. 8 Q , 50-4 A5 l84-2.G y

• y 4 ,

i j I i

t

(

i-

• Q C in s p Ec.T*0t4 93?OLCooraE 5 AN b .SDECIF'iLNIloas ~bo mot COMT/\I.-l SPECIFIC A C CEPTMCE. CE*rrEc_i A FOR. SE PNr(\ t inii 60 ?E.bu4bArar TR Air tf oF FLE.x(BLE.  ;

LoahuiT1, And .SF_' PAR AMOH 'i?EQuiREMEar.5 Huc. 407 Bcca AfGT. i

• REF EiEE t4 CE_ R~.@. EOLker 50 -4 A5 / 84 - 2C,, AppEabiX A, irEn, A.1. , PAst1 t

i . O.C iuiPE CTiod F:gAI LE.b, T~o iMf DCcT To Imahneh IEEE - 384 tunicu peovitsec  !

i SEPl\ttATion CRi ERio oF class 1E., Eau'sPMear anh ciecuin.

. I i

. C.R AFT 5 FtAILFJL ~ro Iu.57Act. FLEXIBLE C.Os buin in Accog.hAtJ cE toiTli ~iNsr ieU b.

GuiteEucars or TN e ELECTeic.4L EltE'cTion SPEciMcarica 2 32.3-1E.C- l oo L l vomcki PeculbE S lh HIE iMPLEMENTArlod 0F THE ceiTEefA of .TEEC -dSd.

n i

3 i t e L

i i  !

t '

p

, b

'~'

' - . L_.. I . ~.L . . . . ~ . .- ::- .-. '

.:: L:  :=  : - = - --- - - ' '

=~ ~ : "- :- - = --

~

' l

, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 R w.r-,...eitco n e e

1 C M Allegation t- E'** [ U *5 o E or Category

. . , . o,

• • b [-

50 gE 'E3' E47 "

.5

{ UU 'E 2 IU 3 No.

?

8 8y 88 8a Mb

'l;i %

458 g$>tl

• M6 Is2 w E E.

R& EE aC E$

3-

-8 2

1

. RAIGC. CAT.8 AQ.- t '35 X 4 .

!I 3

H.

i Y

1 o -

ij

• i*

i; .

l-o ,

i  !

n . L A tk oF A NR qc it AM PLA4 Foe. ' Port Cons.TitucT'ior4 dEKIF(cnT'oed iN ll accote.htwice.tyirW ANSI N 4-5.7_. 4- /lsh _I EEE .Std .33 6- 1971, ,3ccr/ca fo, j Awh Apouenntr_ Cohe.S. Anb .ETAnI_w:Es 'REFEREuCEh iu SEcrion 9 Aub, APPEnbiM

I li 3 or IEEE.-33S. 4 I' ,

a $EFER6N CE : CL A IllC. CATEG.oes 8, SSER t1, AQ-135 pac-c 1,enen,s, naw '.

' PAG E ll,9Altn. 5.

I j

e

~ PRotE' hun E_ iu N. ECluAAeir_SC.

R E. .S.IlG w d Ia _EEcriou 3.9

. t n

t

.p , ,

ij .  !

L

. i

j  !

• f.

4p -

8 i' s l-1 .  ; -

a c1 e.

D i .'

a -

l

. c,

'i ,

m ~ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . _ . . . . _ . . _ . . . - . . . . . _

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

1 2 3 4 *5 6 7 8 9 10 11 gg,g g, g ,

. 3 Allegation y,_ g'*

8 m *$

E

,,, ,,,,.,, o, "5 $ .g.

u E ,

or Category 5,3 3E TX E p.;;;

.5 { Ofo 8 It 3 No. o gy gg - y g g= g

E

%[gc_ Cat. L B 88 at. ?5.8 5,y2 M6 85  ;$

R a. = 35 5 E X 4 LR- .

1 i i 1

l f  ;

! j.

i t

i

! t-

~

t Fan.uve. of h ;cLesign e<omss. to ,equirc Gibbs a Hiu. to , evieto .dar/ 9ns, ~[

anct Mo.dificatio'a_i, of 9 ion supboyf.J Prior to / abvication and uLV.'mah j inslaLLa lion b1 the. Cyafli.

4 i

j . Fait. orc b3 aA a odiTo 1 to note a.*d ve aovf tM3 def 'c.~e a c Y - l l

4

.. Lgeei3 / r'#cen i ., 6 tt .

oc. eden inacLecsu qcy is choton in lect.*on 2. , pp - G o{ A ppe n. P , SSE ft II. l

. .l

. I l' t  !  ;

i -

t. .

l I 8 I'r

- F-l h . W 5,.)W sn

' I I

f.

4 ..

e

, ,c  :.

m m n" . . . .. . . E a.m a - -.u ,. ~ n. n .c .. m. .a ,,,. ;L2 .. U 4$$m i .S4 l Q eu.

d d

. u.

A( '

(1 x M A t ~3 t:0 9 , i y ~ ~s 1 2 c ,D

@ b l 4 P '51 'e 4 2 a .s a i j 2 5 + t 3

- . p C o I ( No attutuuatapuI s- V > \,0 Alm

., g C W ~

t O a J  %

' 7 3 2 tondmI 4 o g stJauas (

rc Mg

't V m (agenbeptuI) .$ c,,,

saanpasoJd -

to

• C 't d

% 5 .

x o

• ~ '

-. 3 'O

.1 m SupJodag ,, n 3 a f s4IPny

} [3 d M q

e

'd 3y

~~

c s

1

'~ uopsadsul 1 d %o ard O ".a '

3D (d t3 g ( -c 3 E r -

3 5

Q va t d,. ._.;

'd

• 3 0 1 sH3N ~ ?-

M a y oC 9 .z *1 n

cu .

r .

- o a r 4 5 -

3*

[ 9 p a) .u~nad .s > -

q ~~J s

• 9 .T "

(.Lun0 5 ,J .'.{ -

a '

g- T **Ja3) g ,-2 * . 9 lg a Sututtaj, xgw C .s a

j

. -3 1 0

. . . . = -

$ t ....... -- - - -

<a

" (4LnvA) spaosau

,d M ,$ f 'W -

C ge g&*2 73 o

a

{'

a, ri a2 A -p e, s w

- \

j u toJ4uo3 c.

.~ gusansoO 2' E I

, Ao Y 2

V

~0 f o

5.S

- ssacoJd X

C # N#d 'M d

'd 7 u6tsa0

.35 d 3

< <.$ 4 -._.

1

,t +

og %a $

as * - ,,,Q j q

• d -

. <:5 cv EEEE PJ  !

1.' d E d.

i t- " . l l -

1 1

. es=- .. -.

.. - . : .. .: . .- . ..a . = . = . . a .. .w +

-. .. a.:.a.. .

l~ '

'. 1 2 3 4 *5 6 7 8 9 10 11 R.tu. Bow.cacec.4 n 3

i. e .3 E A' legation

• taa 8 *E E* }*

or Cate'" =

38 NE See Na5 0^

52;

• E JD U

K 3"Ub I M*

'M *

h. - u eg. . ua

[E E 4 .

G.A : QC. Cat.1 8 =g 83 8D --8 gde; E6 85 da aO 3g S TR-6ItGB PP- 2. Q[' .

X 4 -

!i f

I i, L t

e

. Mo G. ibbt .n.14ILL proc.s.d_uve relatta.0 to Maic par'Ct c.~ Dat_ Ion anatyrer d fos .Cu pPor t L4Ste4 doli.9n co uld b e found. 'TUEC's dastem ve.cifica:uon il il and O. A iudtEs I o. sing e.kistins Procefse c y t t me.nts at Coun a n th e.. Peak .

c.o nn plia a c.c_ wit h' h Lica n c/n9 p[an y/

0 . besisn proces.c dofilcienciel a>-c ibun .a '.Cecuan 3./

&traf.St..i.bnhet ,

.~

..t \ o, c

a O.Al&C EEER. d. 1 l -[ t I '

t' 6 -

'7-, rt - 2 of At'A* N.. SSE*AS 4 f e '?,o c.a.d.or t. i n ed.e q oa cie.1 arcsh{ohni b5ectiom %2 r

!l Q,

• t-ij , .

4 -

y.,

t'.i T2.w.Tci n >>g l fl5 l cla/ss ,(

j '

, i

,o f

4

SSE ft. " 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 g,y r9 ,, t civi'/ Srauct 7 3 ..

g , mg 5 (RWB )

Allegation . p- ,_ Ed ..  ; *S E g. u E or Category 8,0 32 U EJ^ .5 g 31' T.8 It 3 No. o gg gg o +2g y g ; g, o g as .g .

T,?

8 88 M t. 7,5.g 4 8 qE'n M6 t'r5 Ra  ?=g 8? 5 c/s cnr 17 , y l

\ AOC-45 1.

i l

/-lbl C. - 4 5 = Pets.nci is L PR ObucE h Ita LOPEmtr R EA'hitib_L 04 LOtacc.c Tr_ iiilicl4 t i

hfb1T SLALO. ARF _C-AliQe4 WWh (4EiftlER \/R*J 5El f40se_ REFuTC.J.> . l I

• TREF tR E,4 ct : C.ML /,5TaucTure AL GE E. fabet4rt w i t r 3 Pl\G,es k- 9 5 A. k-% . j

j -

I . d ** ' * **  %

i I

i  !

I F I--.

' l:

r 1 .

I k *

! L, i

l t

I i

! k I

p

. . 1 ~2 -

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 n 3 .

3  :

Allegation ** en* - 8T *E E* ]*

or Category cE lE $U 0 *^ E **

• • U j E*

h' OE =* c5 ff* J d' I #

?3 is le ll EE se Me SEE 42) 35 5.Ut i QA D L CAT. 8

• X R .so-44s ' 84-u -

W 2 -

AA?M /$ -

Ii e

l

{l .

f.

l*

• dC IMi9ECTOR L fA*tLE'b To s'RE.DO MissiHG BRACE. ANb Mi.t oR.lENTEb I40RIEON-

• W ALMi1Li'4G 'LM unr1bV Tat LE_& on wo Casts _Tebnd

!! nac6ECw te.ru woT coatveucrch, ia Acton-  !

j bascE unTH 1Rawiac EEQUIREMEtJT.S.

n -

!! e CR.fWT3 .FAILEb To FABR'icATE Ash INITALL iN AccOR.bAWcfr_ u.siTA/ 1RAtui4G RE.- I' a ,

h SO'REME)4T.5 . i I,

N I

REFEeEHCE.:

]l LETTe.n,2)ockEt tJo. so-445/e4-26, Ina. is,1985, SPEciatIasPEc- b ij . -

i Tiod_j oF THE. TcE. .SAFEGUARb3 OF UioLATiod, SECT.'on ANb AU,VILIARY B, PAcc 3, wtss i, ,3g3 3Ruilhiy , t-N

}& ',

,, (.

k -

L '

1 g,..l}>n pi6 L

L-1 /

j -

i g

c.

5,(*

l'  ;

ff i

, , _ , _ _ _. . - . - ,,-. E t___________ _ _ _

.==.==:- . .: = . -. : : . = .. . .. a .. .  :. - - - - - - - - - - -- - -

4

, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

~

R

> n D 1] Allegation y- F*

5 L *5

. [g a E

,,, , , , _ .

• 8 u or Category m.

8,ll Es E T'

== Eg:^2 2

.5 m {  !! t'a i4 ga It sg 3

4 -

[,

E ac .fb  :

a as xEs uts se mf a ~= s a __

o QAlat cat. 8 A R35L so-4A5l84 24 X -

@ + - I if p

l h

l u . . .

k.

U . Q C iM1oect'on .Woceborms Asb 3DECJFicwTioNS bo t40T CourAid .SDEcIFic, '

l AcCcorAatt Ce.*Ter_i A Foe. SE9ARAtioa of 'Rc't::,09%Aur Te Aidi cF FLEXiillE.

L cog'huiTi j Ar4b Sd_DARATi04 ' REQ 0iREME.ats Havs. Mof BEra MGM

. "RtFER.EMCF_ 'RN 'lSo tkE.r

• 50 -4 A5 / 84 - 2.c , an A.1.,PAGE.d.5 g

. O.C. ius,PE CTiod AILEb To IMIPCCT To STAdhAnh IEEE - 384 tunicu pitovitse_c l

.S EPARt\ tied CRITgRiA OF CLASC 1E_, Eau'seMear nuh cie.cuin.

[ . bt AFri FAILE.'h To IN.57AU_ FLEkiBLE COnbuin in ACLordbAMcE heirN TMc fDE, Guietucan, or Th ELECThic4L EREcTioa SPECIFicATioa 2 52.3-E.C-I oo

• j vanici, 9eouthE 5 ih. THE IMPLEMENTAT(DeJ OF THE ce;TEeIA of 2 EEE-38d.

?! - l f

co/ R L p,y yn y

- F o.

(  ! 7afts' i

~

'e

I u' l .

1

.,.....u.-m_,.~.u--.--

. = . .. -- .

. . . . . . _ . . . .... . . _ . .2=-

.(

j

, 3 , , <, g i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 M k, "

. C.yd a . : ; n s k s c my q  %

c A'W Allegation m #- m- E" e en 9 .F Es ie or category 8,0 82  ?"

• t .3 8g .S u L:7 33 a c'h 87, bM  %

I hh hh $$ h$h *E',E $6 EE N$ ES 5?  ?

Y:

c/3cAirw I i-A C - 19 x ,

@ 2 ( p K 26,2p. .,

'l ' '~G I G x h- Y gg. k- 2 7, 2 9 '

[

t 1

i  !

s 4

l Ac- t9 AMmG w Tust a As mmsuaes on concas,E .isTcn Tucs<ET.s Rvt. Acounci '

{SSr(t

• 8 , C/.s c ATuc, ! , AC- 19, p. y 28, 29) 4RN'T .saoutp Havr OATA(MFD TE5T LAB /yyrcovAL , ,

f cx .31 tout D HA@ McNI TCVlFP Ac.7iV87 Y of (o alr:ACTOld r S- I

{.

[c" AQC - 16 AccEP'IAglL t1Y i of-i Ac c,sfc,6sr (ASPD lta con (9ETE is ur4KNOL41. +

, <C^FT 5Hou %l> HAME u s r- > ~1 e sr-P , 6 esct=C' 4G,caREc,xn n1

. CVC. SHotu-p pAye mon i osu=f> A c ,# u ri) or cos IF Actore.S.

'l 0

9

m

. , ,, , , 1,

. GFv.

• 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 fZ!"

3

!J Q29 c tvit , M f:n ct. g o, g, 5 Allegation . L_ mm E'* .a o, U **5 = u 2

• 3 or Qupry 50" 32  ?"" cJ^

' N#5 "

K UU Im{

• IN h' M E E "

$ $"$" NE "$5"5 $$ E6 t'rE "S N  ?"$ 8? 5 t

WS ' ^^ 3 AC - 24 @ , y l PPf-33,38 l, AC-3F Y & I W N'N s38

l r.

I Ac- 24 ,ccNcF4= Ts PLACFD ON' OulstDF S7RucTuRE _DuRI N C, RAIN sW ANC)

+

WITHouT 6]C PER.s oNN e t_.  !.

r

{ff 0 Y-

,j Sl40ut.D HAV6 I pro 9 IPF.D BETTFR f/2GTE C 710N OF doNCaE 'IE 1

(.

4%Y IN Pt. ACE 64=-FD,2E j wairdo ,o uix mo eme F4GAW F-AIM (~eu 3 SHobtLC> HAVE c mx cg , e u u r,t_ ac # y e, essNr.

,L 0C- SHCLALD ytAN(z ytAW Supg (ggg ,

WS WE  % %M- y MY f qN m . RALN/Mt_L g4As pgg g ,

I AC-?& wc, sons or yonaae -lE expose =0 To rannitens T E M Rt p s tt @ c  :

i; ,

kuenNco cuRsHs-i \.

CR+FT Sucutb HMr (L A cs:p tusuc Ntnata r

Mor<E cotw:tr1rt.Jf ovtw Ar2s=/\ -

se ~M e - moen ,asa c ,w as[a b Tm.b Ah f M PO bry X'h,*eace4

-c -

Ap y 9

e ,,

. . I 's. , " 4 10 11 I 2 4 5 6 7 8 9

(

.. . . ., s. ,

i

• t g u .. STra.uc T.

g g c un a c O M g4 Allegation y, #- y, _ 8'* o, U *5 =g u "E

^

• It 3 or Category &l0 g2 T" c47 5 { Of h No. 8# 85  %'% M u. EE yE E  % ~

?"

8 88 a t. ,b58 [$,Ue M6 82 Ra a. = 3 ~l. 2 _

ClS CATECe.* 3 X )( - 2 Pp. K-35-38 AC-52 I

AC-92 FIELD - cust::D cor4canic TEST CYt_tNDFR'- f* AIL P b 7 O PAFG T 3PfEC (F'(CgilON.S

'(etac % tac i<- d cout wec, sue r gotcescu) i fhCwu>ED l R2 -TESTS HAD t4oT BGEN CARR.tgD OtAT. .,

CRAFT .

SHcM LC) 6-TAN E. TAZf=#4- AFP(20/ % 1A~TE. AC~i l ON 70 MAINTAIN 1-( LC4 W/2.

1 5 vat =Ac e yupppp*1ut26. OF *iH E concRg= w g)/ RtaltDINC1 INSul AT10td. .'

I 4

O2C- SH outb kAve EEn su/24:D THAT ConcRc=. t r: SURFACE- TFAffFGA'WRC f

VAb MAIN'IktMC D fff I N T u t_ M 1 0 N ro @C tFsC A*l)UN , AN C> SHOdLC) g (Ay(~

,.)

RE.QutED Es -TES~l i

M= CARku:b Our, i L c

l

[!

g

!f tI

. ).;

, l L'

. i; .

r4

l-

, Y-1 3 ,

E'

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

g e,.

u -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 0 j *I '4 u.t

_ 3 (mun. )

. .t w ,

, ,3 g _

o m gm -

Allegation y, y- y, _ g'd . o, 5 *5  :, 8 u E or Category 8,0 32 '2% EJ7 5 { Ot* 14 It 3 .:

No. Eo g;> gg ;ug g y g g, gg g g .

8k 88 S t. eh58 $st bel 5 c'rb RE a. "- 8.g, -. 5 c4 CNIFt3

• 4-p(_,9 & - X 5 (P X-39,42

A c .3 2. X X M (7> K-39 4 j

4 A C - 2F Fh lt.-ot(EE TO CoM SOLipNt E CONCRE'i E ARoub@ Rgggf oRct Nir-NT ANr> IN1 o l fL l ccanen o r e;c u s ,

l~

i Cr2 AFT SHoutb umE useD .su nn e,Le usa Ns ro Acs tev E paape a.

r l p CON.So t DATlDM . h I

QC SHottL P HA\sE 89FM PAE LFMT O/ TEN ENouf1H TO kli7 NU M l AC W ITYl ant > ,o

, eeauien. ptxcpw=u7 , c, specipicoiios. l AC-32. INAcc.ctuKIE cor45ott 0>M t o M oF, c oscitf-~i r'. .  !

C /2 AFT suoul- l aw' uSFD tw:7s tat >S lo ACH6V6 CONSoubKl (O N . '

• l Y CRC .SaoulM HAN Jul*c$f~lCMLED

. 4 MON t

'll (E Pl ACGMpt4T E-Nou6H, 't o g n .s u R s. c oMPLt Ar4 C,tE WITH .SfEC gFicNi LON ,

[-

I .

9 t a r

d :. -1

.[i r,K

8 9 10 11 5 'I

) 2 3 4 5 6 7

. .: Cpy . sv y a, (Murd

< .t' int . ,: :s r.* v . I c me 7 %c

~

o a gm -

Allegation . #- .- E'* ei

'5

=a o E I or Qhpry Eg $2 T* cJ7

' U5 UU EE* IU 0 2+ "a "g " "e u o =

1 "a E "v g "2 5 E ~*&

0c '

8a 88 M g" "g n- 3 "8 o6 x

ae a~ Au n- ~

'AS ' kl'"

• V y X y. v-AF,47

}

AC - ZG

, AC-3l X X 4 /p K-49,47 l'

[.

t; I

' up-AC- 26 EdwpMFNT PRr=4vwrvP C L '1 L c* Mi> ON10 6sRosil .

CRAFT S H o ut:p p r.we (JA tTF C) TlLL 6'Rcul HAO cu(2FD 'I o PaoPER. ,

STraf= N CM H , ,l l

GC suo ut.D lHAVE mon tToRJ:D Ac 11't t7 Y OF con 7RAclorz_ A Mb si <ouco I

l, llAVE Re.pu(PFI) Tl (AT c,Rou I U.F C.it VGN TME TO AG4 ftE VC i.

DES 86N W t Nr,13( Fog __ t oAE>rNC, . I R l"'# ^^8'" # "" '

Ac-3l lN^DEaukiE ,PR oc1Mia$'I A% No uppGe tIntT oN t,a c sc a t- V e

i

. FFR PF @lc u t. AR f T', op ANcucv2 Bon IA1.3NT WMi t M5F PL Nir S W2 FA( t- h r Wim con cas rc supracc. . .

j' n

GM F NCdlMIT/ R . SHolu-D e40T

=

t(Avc A PPRoN fD AN iMCePt F7 F IN7EcTroN ( -.

N TI(b bbt3Y hRd II>(sp f. , ,.

k s:

i . .)

h s

-: C y - n s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a,

11 P"7 G M ';

..t'nu* : n:s.s.

-

• Govat

'~ )

8 8 m . B.

g -

l Allegation . L .- E*" o,

'E "5 aE o E or Qupry

,- .& oc ag N

3 ,E oc E#

on c47

-u- Eu5 y { UU

-o

• E va IU ga U

4c -

am as ag u

taa ra 18r a5

=

oE o~ # =%

25 m- 3& ~

• ' ^*'

• G AQC-it @ . y 3 .' ty> K-50, 95 AC - 37 0 '

W '

b

{ '.

i i

j . .

l-A ac-1/_. r2erent usep ectoc. To (2cceteT trarec c, sos n't ac.

CRAt:T- .s m uto Nor sue .

(4ASt ie r> ca c 7u .516N cF F ON 714' (2ECE=lFT iMSPec TicN8 - A NC> .5HCMLP NUl i /-(AV E Lg 5Ff> Il fil.g4K {';

WFoq= seccaAu t cnemicAu- AvAa(st S WhS ut=te.lrsG $g p E-eo WO H 'th it L ~il' M L (2spacT. l A i'-

i li Qc sucutI> t407 HANc- (2put:As[ t> ttc.fua t fNl l L_. SPED GAL C HM(( AL A M4u/J13 I WA5

(

Ve<2.as #FC> puctMG P6CFtPT ( N SP E c Tio N . h[

t P

E AC- 37 I O

( saa .s s l <. w4c .)

g

[

p t

l

' 2 kie, J

{;'

Kt g.. *

._c__. . . . . . n _; u : _u . . . .u  : u...a u.c a _2 . . _ _ _ . . . _ . u _ .. _ :. , ,

, , .a g 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 g , ,,- 7 .(

. .t 2::  ::st n.;. 7  % INO f ,

E m "% a i Allegation . g- ._ p* .. p *3 E= o E or Category Eg 32 U E47

'g 5

• y u

h Ot Ug d It 3 a

No. ;g 8p 83 [2,g~ gg 8" -

a. as at da us as am n= sR a R' ";f

• cg) .

x I ee x-m M

[

a, -c reg unc. @ l

. y" re K-49,92.

l'.

r

.1  ;

s DM RE6AR om T lFD CN C O N C/d E l E v4L t . AT COLUMN LOCAflON.S.

l ChFT SHovup HANG Fut r.oact> DE3tGe M doc UMyN*TS,  ;.

GC San tsui> t <xyr Vc ta F # c-i> gEMg PL A C FM6fMT Fra. M ~1 o

[

k i .

l' l

M 530 N IY'F,tc. CMiSSION OF RF iNicw. iN 6 51FFL NoT orpocTFD E'/ ANAt 'lTic A'

• Ch CALcutjynoNS, c,icess # sip _ enc.iNEERING .

Acevisso cmsmucmN CoND2Ac706L r-(eacim k gooT ) war cu rrTeo aE$C WAS NOT CR.lTl4 AL  ; . k[

' t

'~

HouevqR, 6, # 1-( EENGiNFEg # N c,

(_ tap ppgpqmpp No 3.tippogilN 6 CALGuLglioNS AS AMAty TICAL SAsr. c , [

, ': {-

& to pd

. I$

, _ .. ----:-.-. - - - -- - - - - - - - ~ --- - ~ - - ^ ~

4 jj

{

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 y=o;;c 3 ,,,

. 1.7 . Er r- o i

. .cie . im : . =

gc )

g ,,, - t Allegation M- '"* - ec E.s i m .- c o en , t

. ;; .g g L .E, '

or Qupry EO R2  ?# %J7 33a g th $3 UM  %

No. BE 8E E,0 og 2" j ~& E

%[

3 88 a t.  % $.%

.E 8 gi'! = cr- E" m% a- ~

l-L cf.s m v.a criC6 ~6 se rac- .

x j pp. K-49,93 e (4) .r

(

4 pess&rs ccric.

c(9) Q x A ty. V-49,!33

%5\G94 $1~F IC -

y } fp. V* A 9, Eb e(4) y

' (

DESIGH PFFic. OMISSiOM oF (REls Fc8ctN ci STEE L IN A CcN C FE'l E BEAM cN Fe._

C(4)

CON STR.% HON OfGMLNCa ,

L t

CRAf T Spotu_D HAME Fott_owsp D E,$tfN DOCLtW MT5- ~

, 1

[.

GC Shou p pAyE INSP6cTFP ARRW rqFMFNT FGPc(2 (MOPE. I THOR OdW Mth' pas 042 TO CcNc/2E 1 E pot gr<,

[

PE>ld4 DYic. QatSSioN m of= ggrggft gs con (RE-T /\RouNC) f _t EVATo(2_ WAFT Doore. l GRAFF S Hm'D Havs Fot_to m p p 6N mcuMANU. kW l

QC SHoltiLD HM CetE(VF-p RFPffL LAYour PMlotR. TD (.cN ( TOE 'i .

• $f PE 556r4 PF FIC.

l POM. b

.U:

eQe)

Ovh 55 ION OF REBA F,. 14 Httdi- F G -IN SI8\ IM C' PoR T10N or h coscae:t r= uma oerne re eauie, wear Acmss .

C eAf:-T l-lMf=-

b.

g-si tout D Fou oelFD DG s 16+1 Dx stMerl I' .

[7 (M. S EtotALD HANE NFv2tFiF() g e__ g u s tyLL Kilo N OF RFP.\R a PR.IO(2. lu RE -PovR. or coNce G 1 E (4 tL _ Pbd2Tlord .

((

j.

. - - - . . . . - .- .-- -.--_w -

.. - .: ..= : . :.

r 3 6 8 9 10 11

..c.,. t.s.. ,o .e.

1 2 4 5 7 pgc. p ,, f e

n.

s. c.vw .;: m.a. , g m s (r* E)

+

Allegation p me em e

ec Es o [

. c- .- c , g .g g ,

or Q u p ry

.& o 8 3 ,2

?"

os c47

-u- Eu5 = { u'

-o u= g' ao 4" -

l.

p EE $$ $$ $55 56 EE k$  ?$ 3?

,e t'7) 4 f

j'g")""- @ 1 re K49, r;2.

0.

l .

l or se m re * ~ w ric. omssion in cows,r me cm3mucmu oeguieu, . L e e,3 cowr ss='o uwe rou'oe.o .ccsion xcam:su.

p c

L~

CJC. SHNLD HAW. VGR tFWD Re&Vt ARRt.t46 F ME-t4T (hor ro cF Po s.tR. k.

CONC (2s1 E , p-r1 1

r l

'i MIGN Pt:Fif. g g g gg gy,cggc , p gcmgTwp ygigg:p g (=gg g gg c g4s 3 St,_geg:ygg ggg e(s) naa eFase .

.uva ns uus,nutxi ,cu .

t-t; . ,

/15 t sSuf .b t: }

DEES LCs #4 D OC_uaA F e4 5 i

IC C cNSTRtK It M WW NW C TRECTj i.. '

THg s Shouch ,q ning _yp:gy c9pcy,p ou, py gyg,ngppens pa wg____ . (l,

To (5 Su AN CE. of"  %,uc , i;

[.

('

I .

g

• . O. i k

. vl Y

' j

7 -- . _ .- - .- ~

g w p.-

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a,

11 g,je to ,,[

flivi d -

.  ::uau:1 7  % ~

8 a 5 Allegation- . p- ,_

..  ;; *5 [%g. o E i or QMyry Eg 32 E# cJ^ 5 { Ot 24 It 3

%. E" SU OS as U M E E. E" 4

• m as as n sa E"=E d at aw a a .

cp ca,ve, - c.

Iv: 9(.as X -

X i fP k'EO< EI e ls) w sic .

i-i b

l r . _

,r.

I I:ESMN J4:ft(. lN ST ALL KitCN CF' SMAt LC4'- DIAMF:W MBAR THAN .5Hw8N ON I)/Jtd tM6 [1 e(s) ce vee r.ic^' miscoecemasT Ar inweseenos or % cmcastn. wou_s. f5 t c c.Af:T S H R tt.C> HANT. T~CLLovlED ps:_St4 N Docuf4sEgT.$ ,

'{.

It QC SH&tL HWE W Rir F.6 Ss2C o r (2 s je a to B6 I N SI A'L ' I> A T~ (::

tNTFASGE 110N of *lWO @u_S . 2-

p. :

}'N .

e, -

n.-: >

~~

. t.>

1 Ik j p; p

l E:

it '~

f[

h, p

;

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ - _ _ - - . _ - - _ . - -- . . - - - - a

\

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 L f .3f ;. tr p

• (,A c ,, n f l l

( N L1 ./ . l f ' t '4.1 -

,,7, %c ywr i m g. - ,

Allegation y, y- , , _ g'* . p as 3 g. o 2 l or category 8, 32 T s47 s a g at i4 It 3 l ;

a 8a T b';;;

[b t a ER ya 4 -

E 88 0 .

s" a a s# a= nea ua sa y.

n .= a-[ a i

c/s c.vwc.

• r AC- to y .

Q i ep. n-57,5a e

~

t-l A-s

{'-

AC- O g gggg, og gg gg ccccg>g3c pt_cora. , Stag p a g p:

tJ4s impgorga.cy . ,

^~a urruous oc in:oa u m . g u

e C fAFT- samt-D NOT MAW F5s RrcCWA ReFAl/t W #1NMT dC. INVC FtvvinT . I' ,

e h.4 b i be A\fE PCrp( ESFM1 W Mc-AfV MG1 t-toD AND MCdt AL 5 $f useo em en ea,w. ha e

r.P.

4 b2 0

F-e.

g f . ,.

j r ;1

! I, e

l 5h b

p, o

i .

s . 'I I.

_ u -.. . - .- . . . - . ..s. . - - - . . . - mrm - - - -  %;

}

f 10

., ,5., g .y.. ag 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 g,u,,je r/ of

[ft 3

W.-

. . n n t ., : t es u.. s . , ,3 g ,

o en g as e ,

Allegation y- *" '

m ._ F"' . c,,

I = i'r o E or Qupry Eg 32 E% c47 s5 { Ut i s EU 3 No.  ;" SE 8E  %- S M = T2 8. yE E 4 '

8? 88 M t. ,':5.';;;8 [$,%

M6 Er5 AE a. C 8.j. -. A c/s c41ca

• s AQc-t y

(* g$ ~ j r

Aac- 2 b X Q$ Z X fr> k- % 63 >

' , ,.mu. **d'ee.. m me (4 Aira. gr4Wpr4MFMT) l; i

6 AGC- I G.c ir4fPEccl

• RF c cavo FAW VALu & @ doMW N TM-

C(C SMCML_C> . t-tANE F=x LoWFp M o c F C>t.tC f~. 3 AND PE c cP.D ACTLAAL- VALuE.

! ,o PG1FAmtuC

{

sF (ecaE1r .-

FNTRAt4tAGMT'.

Was odntuM SPGcW~tcAU N Foc Att (si Ii.

Aac - 2.c4 l (*, &dRG['

stump TEST l P.E.suL7 5 ^ ' vidrUS . O\L Ss nF D, (t

• I;

- F. .

6tc S$-(o u L !> l MN/' (ca cw(A (hoc F' puM~ amp yg ggry *T1 M 96 ' M 'T 5 a+RE RaccapF u h-accuamat Y. -

YM ,

AOC- 2 b A,ka., stump, At4C) TFM/N(2 AWE v.M 5 NoT FMOW@ P A- '

k t {;

.S

[M cf47 _ b A(. E N N3 b @ LO ctAh)C %d2pS t-cQ LGE 5, .

r-c,tc s u au & s- w n' Fo cuwGp PR m rLu^*!~ CA W Prc & M u m r c .s u m con <n w . f V

s.

, i..

e- n,

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 p4; ; is n(

..J.1

. - er I- 1 (p g-n +>

i Nil ~;t.W 6- * '-

, c . E O M Allegation 1:,- m - .o c  :

E 848 '

"E m m- c .o a , g g .g g' o y ,

TM gE or Qkpry E. f2 cd7 .

g gg g% 'M  % , ,

1 If NN hk kN) Yh h5 85 38 ES- I E

+ c^m

• 8 L 1

AGC-2 4 y .

@ g y y- c u , c,3  ;.

k AOL- 3 X $ W K-4Is "

if U

[p AOC- 2 1 frze muce cmuc e- #$at isexirD* IN Acccv2DM CC W I Ti ( S/ R ARocCDut4 5 Are

BY QUALtFtFp (YRSON y SuT PRE SS u GC- T E 5t( WAS OSSEQNpc> App y.

g h =

a

,  % CC'RTip . {

l Tt:stlNCi St a th (4GT OtMIC ALLM6:D Q C, TO QfsSETVC AMD -

j; I

CEp_T1 FY ' E

• Tiff Si ci NCR- um NOT Qu AttFtFD . >

t; f

d C, SWoud 74CF l (ANE .S l(eiNC D O Vl- C G/1VI(cA OW (F N OT p

' QUALIFirO TD po .so , k AOC- 3 e ^^

eq C NC-f*f*t I AblN CMbb i

.~ _ _ .. _m - - ~ , m-

i 4

It4 sec ewn An c, tns sv er c Niss.A .  !-

} G C. I'

.S-t out > l-(AVE racoWFD (% orr-i u-F Astf> (ac_ca2 o A c c w Ai (E I' l SW5 W *T C= 53 S- PreKhrM (* b .

9 is

. . . . . . . . . _ _ - - - .~ . . . . . . - -. - . -. - , - . . . - --. a. :. = - u -.: :- - - - a - - =- -

10

, ,g. a y , ,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11

{,,9 c g 4 ,, ,

n a

< 1 lit., '. . IT 't e Ji. ,3 g (gwrT 8 m g -

Allegation . g- ._ Ed .m y d5 3 g. o 2

- or QM@ry Eg 32 T" cJ7 5

• g $t .g It $

8 8a & GR 8* 8 -

s [t,t;-

No. -

as a s% a= %a'% . n u .n E"=8 ss .s -

i

'l C/S c K1rt,

• 2, .

l.

AQ c - 7 X '

4 X (P k- 62 , 6 <f- ,

AOC- 46 ><- 3 X (p K-G 2, u 4- l Aac-si X (29 3 >< re i< % o4 r a $,I

• c:n u

,1 i AW - 7 fat. SIF t c Al lON OF- con CRE T f1 COMPRES6 tut STRsNC 7 (( T r=S T 5 L

d.

] - wr= r>,c ec x- oc c, m c a<- ~ ~ % um, , G:

g 1

' munc.oc. . .. r3 t.-

GG SFtou > \ (Avr rot t.oWFD Pent rhowr s A sc> SPCC tFic Ki TON S 1

re ensacounwr wo avea.ramc, or e ncac., a .rnn .s . ';

n I

! AQc 46 l Fat _srt ( Al WN Of M gp(-b t/R "j]m '.fi 3 . pp C ONcet="1 F DLY1tN 6

[ A A LF-Mf NT IM CONTA t NMFM1 I

MS FMT.

y @^6c^i5f'C.) .

QC si-toutl D t-fA N C , RC c & {.>rt> /> r .".>. it 1 5 A CC uPKl f t.-y f'R o tA 1 T~iT d

, ee.~<.' e n eca a n. p I i Aac 5: capurt.p ysssu. c 7 r C1 Ee c-saI> s gr eom Fr> cy cac iNicecine I f vJ ITHOuT ~13 (f - T r

• 7 .5 Ac TuALL 'l 60' tN (. PGkr~oA MFA .

62 ( St-t Lk \ IbMC O't tTKN1 FL>

? ~11.l~ 'f r.Tt.5 AM[> (2r C 0915 '1I(G M L[

acca amcuc en e,cocr w r wo sea.r,ca,wu .  ;

.. .t

_=

,. .,. 3., ir s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 p.y_. ip or .

e

< .t tu .

(.. e ~1.

c

^

me

%c swr'.

~~

O M gM Allegation . #- ._ F* m U *5 o "E or Category &C " g2 T* c47 5 M Ut b= g- IU 3 i' No. ut 85  % ;;i E d EE E 'E ~

";?

8 88 Mt eb58 [$>U E6*

E5 23 a.EE" 8 ~l- 5 j' C/# #^ *'*8

Aac - s X .

@ g{. X ,p g_ 7z,73 i

j 4

Aqc gg X @ 4 X pr K- 72, 73 p,

e i

Adc- 40 X @ d- X P/ K' 73' I'F

's I ' ,

h f.1

s-

)

! AGC-B concgE1t c.y Ltrat y gt_ (_onPG.EJ.

• b'N TESE WESE. RL4N A1 A {~4 s 7 pp

[

] .

Lo^PtNG gA7g TFtAN RgsMT1 F6 SY e48 c. PG6tu ATicMS .

! QC C;Hout P MAN C. Fr4S w-Y t> 'TtsT s ufr:a c gun Ar LoAptN6 RKi t vJ t Ti tlN (:}

l ,3PE.c tf:tC AT tob4 .

b.

I s t(1 5 AQC- 11 CONC E.ET C_

• TE.5'l (_Nt t r4 DER S (J t TH ACEQuKir S'. I Pr NG'l I ( WN- [6

. o, i, u SFD To Reecr vrai 016 #FR. f t.A ( C M f: 147 S ,

[ 4C 9 eout D p'ir t'ot L N Jf !> PR.ocs: puff S Fc(2 U5f- or

. TEST NYuNps R S AND 56-tous D H4WC pe a f o ara r p> AMD RE<Mr#D f..

[

. TESTS lca A c coppascC vli1H SPe.c trtcATioMS . f.

p o_

AQC-48 Coract20 ir_ test CW_(NDrRs (N i# :C. R.tJ Hurri g_.Afa2A t ofr( M o n.T-

{

j 9 000^ MAC At.t-o W A To . Art . H vcAtPtT( 4/AS twoT R.r wLrC) 3 Ed G C..

I GC 55-totty.D l tAV- Fo't et if D Azocrbuer r.w. MIAte4T F 4bM<r AAJD p_ rpm 1m6 or HueAiD a r y is MotsT Room.

il

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 rey l( J

, . . O. . g F,

' 1

c. tin. : sc:v:s.

_ 3 , vwr I - , ,5 3 o a g - 5 ,-

Allegation

[

I

. T .- E'*** oi ' B 'j .gg u

, }

l- or Category g'

8,2

-u 32 su T*

om c+7 e S- - 3"5 { *g *"

gc 5- M E

E .

Ih

)

l

$$ $$ $$ $5$ $$ $"6 Eb u ct AE an 8 ~g " [-

i kl C " II Ac -4#

y X X, X 4/- y. K 76-77

! t S}

i hl -

e j AC-41 e u A:>1 ic Joint F# utre- taxir RiAt (RoTorow") usrD AS Tf3MPa7Ar-Y j -S(h CE R_ ro IAAtn~TMN REQutor D A gg, spAcc fnwrN mg smic_ c Aq csoA.sf h I STR5dC 1WtG S; ROTO roAW Arab DGSct S .57 ILt- IN PLACF

{

CRAC r tJA5l cNLY lo u SE' R a ru roA M

i A '- TMPm M smcm uMrIL l.

con Ce26 jE HAR Dr NFC>, (.

t I'

ac cr- (2oToroW AND

~

pg D i naT tcere AcecauATr Recoaps t DF9R13l PF MOVAL At4D ANT $ N 5(% c. 'l t ON 1 #lADG

! i G 1PjpS f H1LL 9 M 6tNFG c.S Dtp froT CM38tDC At4 WIT 5 o y -inom - gr- - e ~ ,.s - m e , .

n EcwdFM THC se is,iic. cx,1=c,o<:ty z e,ui t__g, sc .3 uaa'o c. .^u sa F r.

I.

u ~ ce s.ia a e s, ca cs.mL. twrcuncu6u memc so tsmic ovsur-

{-

nac, I:

eeck<anant arccaps area ypyr op pae,_ p. ,aw.s ruc.a s noNs I #f-Y FCsl eM5(4~< Tson (zr :c m p S ap,,x g w.,,uggy y ac N: C,d ( rNc,iNrr.g.s, coaocendr_ Ac man wAs. lac K tNG PRcwtPT MESS , lii i .- I'

- . . _ _ . . . - - . . ~ .. . - - - - - - - - - - - -- ~' ^*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

'$$FfC 8 o- e

. F#9C ' 7 * #.

( ' tslit . . il % t. e m3 E ( MWr:- ) [i >

Allegation * ** 8 *E OE }* [

or Cate r =

E O E^ *E

• U "U EE 0" ' C 53 EU' UU OE DE 5

~

I 2- 00 # E E -

e ==

88

a. .e a --asg,; s"g on =

4 =e es =

3.e. i e:

a n. = cr - a. - - -

g e.;

c/s c Aw6 l4 , g{, y K. 83.sg AE: - 17

- Im a'1 D;d .

pJ

;~

k,

f. .

u.

E* g 2

j AIE-t7 cce4Teou- R occa 4= "M uAC) Fse t > RuN ( cNDul T , P R '( b/A U j AND

' ll L.a CetpM G (N STJ\ut_r b Ag(2 cett iNG PANf t S AND WFar t40'I f.'

i moeawactsy evacua.i no a2_ Dr.sisaro rm. attvv s nos cy ._i_ o ueim

[

sessme .euc sr . (no ><so e,ccu < a uc.cn ns aw- scsw e.)

j g

• g-

c .eas & simi cscimm s nio ser rwnw>c m. ors <c c.- Aaau rsc s t

04 w suou Anc<s. e on sica or sc+ sc twc ricm s ,o sr xx gl l' -

F,

;g 0 ja mar cemeat - a = o m m tv u wou's er m cuc wires re- p 1

iw .auey .

/

i WEC ptD; r4ol F N Su/2C CoMPLtAM rF v4 Fin t tSR C C . cop I T r~tF N14 S

. F ,

l

_u rc I=o c- oeceAnow/cecexTm s !l 4

, aN couTa ct_. #1ooM .

, g

& Oe V' l-h Il

c.

4 r-

, . 3. -ei g i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

,, i g

. < tint./;.li..e -

. ^

% Gear > I'

• ~

E m y% 5 Allegation . #- .- E* . c,, L "5 s8 u E b or Category 50 32 TX L;^ 5 { Ot 7,4 IU 3 U ..

SM 8a

[a EE 5

No.

a" t M . yE E  % ~

F aa e %e-'s;;;

,- ws sa u =  ::.%.

a -

e cp cxin,

• if -

W' AC-lb l 'I w

(I s AC-IF X 'h X X 2 M m . V -Bq 91 h

[.".

I o

l -

h-

{ A C - 13 t._ oo.N or (ar:g,AR (Att LL 5 IEY2 uraAu n gya.t Erp < u l -l t M C , Of- (21~BA f. . t.

i I.

l C.4FT MK L ERt AL-[CGot lPMrNT .SI-M c K SHouco t <svc. WPT MC #P S j- ,

OF pa.nuu/ e.t r I 35vr. cvz_ sor LohM TW- PAR T 5/* Tool 3 .

$ R SVOLALb I*'IW A P2 OCSOtAl2C Of O4G"(%3;t'~f~ iM(. (S5uSNc6 \,

, i p Arap u l.s c cf D t AMOHb Ccrzc MT.5  ?

I:

AC - If uNAuD on.tECI:> cuEnNG or 1

(2 rc A a__ u sep gn iN3Tnu Anon of I

, Trzoq ROCC SS At S LC. (2AtL A IN FuG t- D - b c. . . l

}

s>~di u

. ac -c a eaoccur or awa scesua <ssuan<c {

i N WL Ot~ flAMONC> CM p 13.5 CFAF T bum'D NO IFY G C. ANP Ftf c. D C:_N G atarre_ if CNC o u N'i F~42

• onw. suo swue.c, m uca n oca w >ra m c_ , , , ,.

CR t L-L sM C . pra ar 0 Y. I ( E'N6(2. g ya rit it (i gutw uNt c' CfTrt T Of- T W' AND W IH " 3 9-M' A V i A(. cut t r l'1 iL (& i'8 C'- %cNT 9 " prre ' HOLE L sd N J:n.itt r d , ,

,. t.'

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

9 l Y n l 7 -A > -

{ S .4 ,IE$ i ce m

.s - o,

.. M s.

? h

>b s, =an. .

SL ~-

s '$:

.. , .

• 2. t  :

a- R-- k Design i

5 D~$

\,

Process -

?  ;

h.T $

1

• s

., j$ N Document *l Q

s J

g q  %

h L* '

Control N i

~

h~ Records y <

.(ti 3 (Vault)

4. ._ _ . 4 .

) g Training i

4N s s (Cert. &

Oual.)

. s 3

, CF '. ,%

C ['s Cht.& ,

A p<

Testing * .

. 4 c_, 4 NCRs & ,

i ,

e I -

CA

$ h' +

f %), QC .

p Inspection u '

r  ;. -

0 Audits & '

.I Reporting 2 4

k Procedures (Inadequate)

• Y  ?

O

=

4

'. t ceneric Impact g h, -Ss m .,

I Indeterminate

/

~

[ 7\

f

--_________,_.=-_:_u +

. ..._...u..._. ..-. _. -_ .-_ . . - . . . . . . . . . .

l 1

• ,.a

. . c f I ~b sPh .

7 ,*

~

.F S -B ,

M CE u I kyn%

.. M' .% N

'E- -

%. A Design Process 1

.p -

c 2T

)k '

Document Control N g ,

Q *

.h Records w h'c4. . _ _ . .

g (Vault)

Training

) a h (Cert. &

Oual . )

9

- s n(

g t. &

,- - T ting

• L.  ?  %{

i ,A NCRs & ,

T s CA M D. '

a

i. gg Inspection

• s

!k. Audits &

Reporting m i

\

Procedures  !

s N (Inadequate)

• l 2

2

~

i Generic b Impact g g

A Indeterminate E --

4, .

S

._.,..__7,__,..;.,,,7.m.._,-.,_..-.,.m - - - - . . -!

...z.  :: .= : .:.w u.=.a ._=. .=:. : =. . ~. . ::= . .. ,.= ._;;= =_- -

O

-4 hO C >  :

"i '.1 g 'o ,

l '

DE

% *s g*

~

. $... he *b %h 6

? 't 4 s

3 a=  :

{b 3 .-

N ig dI N .e. '

Design

[. . g'7

Process s i %

T-C m

.N '

4*

Document

].

Control N

, g b

Q ~

Records w

1. - (Vault) g hY 'x Training (Cert. &

• 3

~

s Oual.) ,-

t. & .-

T ting * .

a .

ERs &

• D 3 m

1 .

h O

% 9 '

QC Inspection w >

7:

t '

Audits &

Reporting =

i-T 3 { s .

Procedures [

N (Inadequate)

• 9 i

( {

6 -

d n g~' Generic i:

i Impact g j.

4,

% b.  :

.Q Indetenninate ,

s --

O

\, ..

( l. .

K'

(

[

t

- + ....-. et . , ,,.., , - , ~- -'

,, w7 , . ,_.. --. -- w -- . . m. -

, v. . ,

, , - v .r c .

I C

'. t<

4

% t e >p  !

A -1 E%B 44 CE b

. ~~... 17 %

N .i $5 ,

, \ .

l . , . Design 4 Process ~ .

i Document I '- Control M ,

1

• % -3 a.

Records

, g M.v.

(Vault) l

=-

Q Training (Cert. & *

- , Qual.)

l l

t q h-s '.$'

4 h t.'&

T ting m O

Cs NCRs & ,

i CA

-Q

%[ -

s h

'* QC Inspection

- - u

'3i s h- Audits &

Reporting m 6

b N i Procedures i

% 9 X (Inadequate) *!

A.

Generic i W Impact g[

. t' Indeterminate

'. - r 1

AI l'

6 m . . . . - . . - . _

______._,,9., - i

_ .. _._,_. m m ,. .,..r_.._.--.

. .. . 7 - .. _ ._ . __ ., ..

i 6

i-etanimretednI F

[g tcapmI -

[ cireneG

[ * )etauqedanI(

! serudecorP

• r

.l

[oc gnitropeR s '

& stiduA D

o u noitcepsnI

• CQ  %{

AC

)

& sRCN '

W ,

• gnitseT .

s )

1

&.th 4

).lauO

^ & .treC( 9 gniniarT s

.u )tluaV(

sdroceR ~ ~

{ '

9

, *' lortnoC ( Y ~

• tnemucoD J 4

$l .

- ssecorP ~

?

ngiseD ' ..

+

Q -

%LN [

F.7 E M

• 89  %

a * *. s 3 gh 4

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

. ..... ... ..~

_ t . . .

l I e l 9

I

>1*? .

d t

-f 5%B i p*

• T l:

W ST  ?

m V N me SE {

Q=

t

, og Design d Process s

"a 4 j Document I'v

'*I

[

Control D

d -

Records w i

^

(Vault) ,

._p _ _ 7 ._ _ . _ .

Training (Cert. &

• Qual.) i Cqpt. & I

- Testing * !

A 4 i ki - 4L A X NCRs &

i 4-a a

os -

tr~ q l s ;L QC l

t Inspection u' m .

1 -

Audits &

)s .

Reporting *I-4 o Procedures (Inadequate)

• T Generic h, .

- Impact  ;;;

2 A g G,s :t Indeterminate I

. . , - , . . ~ - . . . ....;- - , - , , , .,-...%.

_..,%g,,-.,f. ,_..g.._, , _ q- q n . , -m.. , .m

. - - aa -: + t:

. 1

=  : .. : ..:.:: .. -

-..=:.=.= - - --  :. . ..

[ .

I 1

I . g l'

> b b

?4

~

,a q ga U 00 ,,%

o e+ t'

+ .

Q v.

+

g, g Design O

J, b

n Process -

~ . - 'k,l 4 y

• 1

- l Locument ',;

Control N b 4 .

i:

4 -

~ Records w' (Vault)

Training (Cert. &

• Qual.)

s Cgpt. &

Testing

• A NCRs & -

{ .

p -

CA s .

g QC Inspection w 1

3, Audits & .

Reporting *

• N N . i' 4i -

Procedures  !

M (Inadequate) * !

1 Generic

- Impaet  ;;!;-:

i Indeteminate [

9

,.,,,w.e. sweq= ee,"

• N '*

• 3

i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , - * , , ,,5 . - > + e

z . -a.- . = --- - : ..;=.-. -..-,.; -: - ..

2.. .;- - -

, .n -- l

, -1

• ^

e f

4O 33 gag -

~-

-l -

De;;;'

to -,

4 me v

. ,n e

- ~

D Design

~

Process i

d6

• l% Document 'b Control N k Records w (Vault)

_ __ _ .... _ _ -. M . . _ - . . . - -

Training

^

(Cert. &

_ Oual.) i:

• Cgpt. &

' Testing *-

) ..

} NCRs &

.[!

CA s .  !.

w o nspection u ; ..

, s g Audits &

Reporting g *}:

s L s

9 Procedures I:

(Inadequate)

• I' t,

1 Generic  !

- Impact 3j Indeterminate i.

E .

t t

h

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

. - - . . - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - .--.t me-w 7 "~ e"

_, , , . i V-

• s

--u ... - - . - = .  :.=. .== ::=== =y .= w -

1

>n

~

l

?$ ir E 1 i;a ~ Da n a, i

~~ oe_

~

'~

y] _

Design s Process s

1

~ Document Control N J N wj og Records

.'~l (Vault) j 4

N Training '

(Cert. & *l Qual.) {

N h Cg&pt. &  :

N

\.

Testing

• { i kI NCRs &

CA s .

A -

M i S QC 4 ) Inspection *i

{  %. -

Audits &

y, Reporting *!

)

Procedures (Inadequate)

• k I Generic p - Impact gf N b

. Indeteminate  !

21 9

. i 4

g) U 1

'N*

? ' '" ' ' '~ T

e. ~ . . =-..~.=..:. . = . . = = = = _ . _ = _- . - . .= -u a

> n .

~

! 1 D y .F S!gE .,

l N - ?2

~ -

v. ee n .

> Y si (.

v g _ Design Process -

• I

~ ~ ' Document Control ro

, [:

t

. f.

s :o D * -

Records w [;

(Vault) i' 1:

r N Training l-(Cert. &

• i

_ Oual.)

~

• 4 t. & I:

L' T ting

• i

- t u;

X NCRs b ,

d .

CA -

~

h .

1-e .

..  % ,l-g

!M QC Inspection w I; P

D tl l

D Audits & I 3i

• Reporting 2 i 7

% +

Procedures f.

h .

(Inadequate)

• j i.i, Generic -

EJ I:npact g p Indeterminate l..

1 2

l

( , -. ~., mu m . ,

. , - ww ---- - - r , .,: - . - --..x--- , - - - ~ ~ - - r- ,  ;,.

l ._,

' 'V,

- . . ,Lc

• lD

. , - - - - . _ =.

iLL~ ,. - - --

I

\

B e

e

! etanimetednI -

I

?

}g tcapmI N cireneG f 9

)

[ * )etauqedanI( Q smudecorP 1 I

D i

im gnitropeR

& stiduA

)

i u

u noitcepsnI D CQ Q I W

' N i,

O g s

& sRCN b

gnitseT '

&.thC y' O h 6 -

N

). lauQ -

1

• & .treC( i gniniarT &

4 ly )tluaV(

sdroceR kN

~

~ ) ., ^

~

lortnoC y .

l k.

i tnemucoD

- ssecorP '

ngiseD ..

, M *

..g t .

j

~

pW m

-SC . p

~

aag i- '

a1 I 04

- ., - . . . .. --.===:. =-.2. ..

, 5 O O  !

?

o -i .& Q-b ,

-c . DE t

• A fit % [

k E i-

~

Design .

g Process l u

) j. Document N .i Control 4 -

Records

. w ,r

• (Vault) i

't. 1 s tu Training 6 A (Cert. &

• O_ Qual.) ,

D  !

i o t. &

st T ting * ,

e

~

T.

?

r QC Inspection u -

4 i W . Audits & i Reporting m (Q Procedures {

. CJ (Inadequate)

• g g Generic

_ Impact  ;;;;

Indeteminate

- t

}

i

, . = , . . . ,

-1J  ;. _ ; _:. chu ,- .: ; J _ J. a _ '. _. c.: _;* f.n 2A. - -._.L __._-

, ~'@

bO ca ' l o4 ,F % $

' D2 cr- *C

%e 4m Y \

~ '

Design Process l < .

1 Document  ! ~

Control N

~

s .

Records w :.

4 (Vault) i.'

O i

h Training b (Cert. & ,

_ Oual . ) j b  :

.e g t. &

D y ting *

. i U NCRs & .f CA r 4 -

QC Inspection w hi i e N

Ch 9 . Audits &  ;

Reporting cc 1, Procedures (Inadequate) *

~

Generic

$ Impact g i

Indeterminate l 6 .. --

l f

l i

• , , x.. __

, .ar,___ .

-2. :

. _ _ - . . .. . . _ _ . _..__.___.m_s._.__ .

~. .

e .d

{

%O '

$N ,if%$ (

o r o -g De<o

, EI$ l gg 5

4; e  ;

t .

- _ . q_Q Design n N Process p1

. Document  !

Control Ni 1;

f

, 4 -

! Records y  !

I (Vault) 4 y - - _ _ . - -

- Training .

(Cert. & *: '

4 Qual.)

g _ -

D .

I t. &

O ting *

+

l NCRs & .I s M I

y. -

3 QC Inspection 1-we D

i Audits &  :

N y Reporting cej O

Procedures 1 (Inadequate) =

s .

Generic 3 g Impact  ;;;

I Indeteminate t O!

. I r

t

. L l

1 i-

- . - -,,m.-_ _ , . - - - - - _

_ ' _;,  : 'r____,3,- !_'__.____ ,_3

$_ , * *l , ,

_. .- .- ..-,-:.,..:--........-~---n 4 3e O o O >

o 1 4 Y$3

+ - d, P 4 QS 1 E$

g-g %

• q$

'~

'St l' Design I

. it Process l

.'p

+

'rt

A Document

~

@ Control N

}'

~

h

,a 3 h. Records y (Vault)  !

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ i_ .

Training

• (Cert. &

• i Qual.) [

A  !

O -

Cht.&  !'

O Testing o'

[

t b r

+ '

, NCRs & ,

CA j, nspection u 2 -

Audits & t 4

d \g Reporting m k]

~

~

Procedures P (Inadequate) * "

% t Generic Impact  ;;

i

'% .. Indeteminate -[p D

. \, .

(

k 5

9e, F**'F*F"**v'w77-*-**'*.$*N F""8** ;M N# - -,, v---

e :~w -. -

u

l b

eO '

o .* g%B ai4 De;;f A gg

'8 E m a=

k _

Design Process "

5

_{ Docunent b Control *

& Records w

'J 4 (Vault)

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

- Training b t (Cert. &

• w -

• Qual.)

t. &

T ting *;

o 1

O NCRs & m:

e CA

. +

s h spection

• Audits &

u Reporting *'

) .

%6 \ Procedures (Inadequate)

• t I o

N Generic

% Impact 3 Indeterminate O

t I

I e

l zum, ,, ...yr.w :c m m- mn ..< :. x -- n -

fwnv n.y,

. c i. ? = ;~

n. : -

m- __

_ 7, ,,

.a____..._. _ _ . . . . _ . . . . _ _ _ .._._._ _. m

.h n 0 -> ,

0 -+

5!! B

~

c, t 9 h %T

( r =g l

- So L k Q" h" n L.

NbD Design f

- Process w.

1 i.

h Document

[

- - - - . 2 m

. L .

Control 'e I

Records y  !.

(Vault) E t

C' ,

- - - B

[

- q Training

[j ;

h -

P (Cert. &

Qual.)  !

s .

g

t. &  !!

4 .

• T ting m l 6 -

o s

k

• NCRs &

CA l-I QC i

? Inspection wf 1i .

Audits & I.

E Reporting m o q

Procedures (Inadequate) * -

Generic N Ir@act g n

I' Indeterminate  !

.. t' -

1 o

t k

i.

Wm%wyy?;yy. y m^my 1 . _ __'--.__v m- - - - --

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

. o*

h.

eO O D g 'o :n.

' i . O ,.

A c DS lii 7. .

+ . E s-  ;

a q=

D ,

Design

- F.

ly Process

.N - ..

.I f'

.m. Document Control ro

~

9E ~

Records " d 4

k

.- p' .

(Vault) u N '

Training .

' (Cert. &

• O

- Qual.) jj t i.

- 9 o t. &

ting o' h

{ E.

i NCRs & ,

' s CA i

p

- h 4 -

hi 'l ( nspection Audits &

w I

% Reporting a s

. Procedures I (Inadequate)

• I

% g Generic Impact h

Indeteminate [

N -

[

6 i k

P

~3

.7Tr y y; g p wpg q q 3 : m ~ z:

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

h, en ,

Od -

. 4 ,I 'a >:

o nm ,

& L %2 at 3% .

i t::

l.

p% .} 7t3 Design  !

Process - '

! p p i .$:s

-i

%}q v Document Control N I

i

.- Records w 1

% (Vault) I

-. 4 i N Training i (Cert &

• 4 Oual . )  !

t

- t. &

g T ting * [

b i D

3 NCRs & e.,

l o -

CA 1

l i

' Q C/

QC Inspection w v i Audits & i D Reporting e 4

i

. D 3

I Procedures 4 -

(Inadequate)

• s i

Generic E Impact g; i

Indeterminate e

l

_ ._ e. - - , , .,.,.-..4 ,t , ,c. - -

% .:22;u 1__.. _. . _ ._. _ .u . _ _ a;__._ .

,-_-._..m---.

4 8 O ,'

O%

i

-i yoy 0

1. 4 DE J

' fir %

, 3o ,

4 ,

~

Design  :)

ss '~

Process - ~1 I.

9 Document Control N

' [i

[!

N,t- -

Records lk

% ~f~ w (Vault)

!j

-o q Training .

' ' (Cert. & * !-

Oual.) t 1:

I

% l b C k t. & '

D L ting

• i 1 b @ h 6 '

NCRs &

' g ' CA A  % -

[

QC k Inspection u g .

Audits &

Reporting co i

• O cs Procedures h

(Inadequate)

• k

}

g Generic h Impact  ;;;

. Indeterminate )

. p i:

P

, .- . . n - ,... ,

= .,,, ,, g a m o m - - = .- - n - - .. . ....- .

L __ - _ = ____ . _

'2

, *u & Laue n v-  :'- "

I *

• n o -

tu ~+ 5 % -i!:

?

. W DE em

~~

• g* '

, $h  !

Nr Q" ,

Q e Design

. Process

- ;b a h -

t A

P' q Document t U Control N 4 Records w' (Vault) q Training (Cert. &

• s _ Qual.) ,

M t. & <

E T ting **

O -

i i ,

'4' W

'^

NCRs &

CA

• i:

e .

I i

N QC l$

Inspection w I 1

• Audits &

N ~

Reporting on i b t ,

% Procedures >

(Inadequate)

• I

%s '

i.

k.

g g Generic Impact g}

h t

A --

Indeterminate

~t I

'k .

t l

- ' , .L_ .

m,-.,_.,_

.. u . mm':.h_W ^ n.

c

_ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _.___m_.._m______.___ ._- ,

l t

e A

e#

O 4 5%.!!.: .

i p ro m4 T r d *C

%o &

6

( Design Process -

Document 5 j -

Control N

[

N"g.

r wj Records

% (Vault) i . .e A { x Training N a (Cert. &

• s _ Oual.)

L M $ Cht.&

'O 1 Testing

• l-

%  ?

i I s j y

• NCRs & ,I s . CA  !*

% QC Inspection ~!

k (p

• Audits &

Reporting m{

M  %

i Procedures g

N (Inadequate) *

~

1 Generic l

~ Impact gl

{ '

',, Indeterminate I M

e i

o

?

_ ,,y m .. ..-;---,~,-.-,,.., _.7_.. _.. .;g.37,,. . . m ,- -,, --.r.. ,

b'

,L ' D

• l# '

- _ _ _ _**L_._.. _a_ , _-_r ~~ ' -

. . .- -  : .: = .. -  ;.a ... . - .

. . . ).

t l',-

D O . h

.N $

.n. % es -

Ri%

. . %g q=

O N "

t w I _.

Design l Process -

l

~ '

~ ~

h Document Control ro Records w (Vault) q 4 M Training (Cert. &

W . Qual.) ,

t. &

T ting

• if, NCRs & .

W CA P .

QC g' Inspection w

\

Audits &

)

• Reporting m c

d

. Procedures '

i h - h (Inadequate) *!

4 -

~

Generic l l

N Impact g' Indeteminate h

4 h

Nt.

t n

y . . y x .-- ,-,m ,,. _-- .

- 7.,-

, . . q-,r,- --

-w -- - - . c._= u. .. .w .a..=

- = -..:u-sw -

j - ,

l

en .

k ,5 % $.

w p l.

PW'

,, 2 to .,

% iir  !!

q:=

[

t

% Design

! ;j . Process -

. + 6 I  :

<L

,Q p

, g Document Control N -

v

, li s

Ip .

Records w (Vault)

• Training b

~ '

(Cert. & * '

W_ Qual.)

1 Cht.& l 4 -{. Testing m O '

O

, NCRs & , .

CA W .

~

n .

6 QC Inspection w i

b .

t- Audits &

'b 4 Reporting i

D' Procedures f N (Inadequate) *

{

N 4 lh

{ Generic ll t Impact g.

h i Indeterminate

• s I

s 4

o n

r

~

r

. , _ . . _ _ . _ . _ , , _,.m.,.,,.. ., , ,._. ,,.,. y.,,.,_.,_.

~t,~, _s.-

..,,h-

>; .t. L My "

• s; e '. *, ' ',

$5,'-?' i_y} ' l $ _, _, _ !_. ~

u-.~....=. . =; . . .=. . c. = . . . :: - -

k i

,i

- . .1 1 )

b i ep -

j

? q* .E R -b X Da

,w EI E.  :

'8 E Q*  ;

.k . . _

j $ .

Design Process -

, L Q r -

i, 1

. Q Document  ::

O Control N 4I I

Records w 4 (Vault) g Training y (Cert. & *

- _ Oual.)  ;;

t

t. & ,

T ting ui -

O -

i ^

g , NCRs & ,t p .

. CA

• ~

QC s ,

Inspection u

}- Audits &

m T 4 Reporting a Procedures e

M (Inadequate) *!

N  ;-

IN . .

% g Generic Impact g {-.

,1 Indeterminate I O [.

t:

4 l

l , i l

l .

. _ _ ___ . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ m._,..,... . . . . .

, _ . ._ ,g l

~.

• l~ ibfl ;;: t i_ :l' 'M e

. . - - - . - . - - . . -. ..-.....: :--.---+ -. --.

1

! 4 OO .'

4 5%E iy -

& QS

• F E%  ;

- ,' Toss i k-$

6-- q -

Design

~

s Process l- .;

' j Docunant i Fa Control N

. }-

's D .

b = i'

?

Q

~

NW Records w g (Vault)

_ _ _ _ _ . _ - . --- n,h $ _. . ..H '

NW ,

D Training a (Cert. & *:

s

.  ? ouai.)  ;

?~ r

< Cgpt. & i g & Testing

• O '

o ,

h NCRs &

i s

CA m' i 7 .

t' j QC Inspection *i Ts Audits &  ;

Reporting co r 2 .

b o

[

' SU Procedures (Inadequate) *

[

i.

Generic  !

E Impact 5' i

Indeterminate j

~

. I k'

i o

b

___ = _

.r_ . -

. ._.1 , . . . _ _ > 2 ._ .

. . . 7 - -,;=- .. . .. --

t l l l

l I

l~

im -*

etanimetednI .

I

,I

tcapmI cireneG 4 l N j* )etauqedanI( w j serudecorP w A 4 hi l

'= gnitropeR } Q l & stiduA

[' .

L  %~

w noitcepsnI -

CQ .

i I I r '

' AC 4 '

& sRCN h O

• gnitseT c

& .tpgC 4 l

j _,

).lauO

& .treC(

gniniarT g g 3 .

p i

)tluaV( 4 sdroceR -

L i

ot lortnoC tnemucoD

f. ' [ ~

I .

~

j- ssecorP p

ngiseD

=,

i

(( -

' 2S 9 -

- - w I,

B % Fi I' Poe l b ,'

s 4_ _

- - . - - _ _ _ . - - . . _ ._. ._ _ ~. . _ ~ - - 7

-, m.. ._.. _ _ . . - _ . __ . _ _ . - _ .. . . . _ -- ..____ -m.. -

e

.b eP -

o * .N fi -B

. -t 98 9 iT %

, l S, er

=

Design f g Process ,-

- t ly 9 {. ,

$ 3 Document F 1

fT ~9

%' Ah

=  ;

X Control N lJ r %4 .

g L

6 jl Reccrds 9 4 (Vault) 4 q Training

~{. .

(Cert. &

M _

6

[ Oual.)

E.

@ Cht.&

e

g Testing *

. l, o q

~

[ 'h N Rs & ,

e

. t;

, t.

c' .Q' QC  ;;

Inspection w' Audits &  :

% Reporting a !!

F h k Procedures i-

%s . (Inadequate)

• j.

b j.

> t' Generic t-g N

- Impact 3[!:

O .  !

> 4 Indeterminate t

. h ~ j:,

2 .

k b e

-m% . --+e - yv= 3 meme w . u. psp .

9 __ - - -

• 'k #

8- % '4'* * [y~r

- :_.+ :i "?

• s' '

• A$.

n _ , ,

..t j .g ._

My'sem9pe rg'w'ypy w = . sios>s m .se--e>q. gem ,2ww -e r w e new g y. . 3 7y g .

e P

' etanimretednI g ;;; tcapmI -

cireneG '

• )etauqedanI(

strudecorP  %

W i

' 80 gnitropeR g i & stiduA * -

w noitcepsn

, AC

& sRCN Q' i

s gnitseT .

f*

1

&.thC i *

).lauO

. * & .treC( . s e' gniniarT e I N

j .*-.--- .. - -- .... .-

l ly )tluaV( ,

q {

l

! sdroceR g l i

. 5  !

1 -

l or lortnoC ' ~ ~

tnemucoD i

- ssecorP Q- .

i ngiseD N '

t m M 4

.I 4 \

p" S '

• si - '

O SD . 9 *- L-

=: c' E w peO w.

.____.._____.__...___......m__ _._ . . .. . . . . ._ . _ . ____

\

e I

hO . -)

eo b i

a .E S -b l P 98 e*  %%

l .

~~

So Q* u g% .

Design ,.

Process l A - j.!

x

. N

'P

. Document N

Control 9

Records w (Vault) r

!a Training t %J (Cert. &

• _ Oual . )

s

' t. &

g

• ting

• 4 NCRs &

? ,

. CA 4 -

l~

p r s QC i.

Inspecticn

• j

'D. .

Audits &

Qi Reporting 2 N

F Procedures M (Inadequate)

• l q Generic Impact  ;;;

i 1 l [ Indeterminate l g. --

t i .

n -

.py ., -w.s. 4 ,e - r +a-=wm**-mam-*4.=====fwowameme*** *agdL MP w

• Wee. Mmwe M**N - * " " - ,

y

!g _ l.- t

• l' E

-+- - - - -

1 t A sD o+

-i .r ,o >:

O' DS k N

$i gm D'

p$$3 -

l .

~

~

t' Document Control 'o I

p Records wJ" (Vault) 4

% _ . __ . l Training  ;

(Cert. &

• I g Qual.) I r

N

~ r i

D

f. f Cy t. &

Testing *1 l

e 0

NCRs & , ,

' . CA  ;

N f- '~

R QC w

g Inspection u :

Audits & i g Reporting =

[

P Procedures i' 9 (Inadequate) 'a [

p ly Generic l-

,g Impact  ;;; j i

s, ..

Indetenninate  !

t

'i i

e i

__-" a

+ }-

-% 2 . . ._. - . _____r_.._.___..______._ _

7>

eD o 4 -

i -f [

s .iF 4-3  ;

.w~ 98 o X%

$g Q* t N

M D' i Design .

3 -

Process

_[

Q

.)- K y g* . .

Document i-

[* ,

Control N

$. 4 i e .q -

l s . Records (Vault) "i 4_

Training y (Cert. & *-

N

_ Oual.) i s  !

3 k Cht.&

• Testing 1

i h h NCRs &

a .

s f

t I nspection w s.

. . . v Audits &  ;.

) Reporting m !

I w i

<i Proceduits I-N X (Inadequate)

• e

' ~

Generic D Impact  ;;; I I

Indeteminate I

_ b

/

D, n

l y

.f 4 -*. ,.- _-J --*- . , - , - -

n

'w

' .h aO . i o *i e 5 % ?: r of

~

a 2'g h M k- i p ET%  !.

~

%E H

4'

- 4 ll

.'. . . ) , A Design Process -

9 Document .

~'

Control ro

. j -4 .

h 9 ' ~

g Records w',

i (Vault)

- - - . - - - - ---- P . _ _ . . __ - .

. i:

Training (Cert. &

• 3

.c. Qual.)

c

) , g T ting

t. &

i n

% i

~ b X NCRs &

CA

,jo N .

ki s QC Inspection w h -

4 Audits & ,

Reporting oc O k b Procedures (Inadequate)

• I I.

Generic E Impact g s

. . Indeterminate I,

P I:

l g ., rs,y m,- --- mm.m . 3 - , . - c . . ~ .. ,- -.-. - . . --. , m , -,.

_ -_., i '

e - -

n' .- 3 o . -

A _ b-' aAss u . .. % .h. 6 h.ssw ht-' '- - - am . - ' ndM e .I M C i

1 a

r

! .M  %

. .x \

4

• N -.

s ::

g. e

) 9'

.s n

~

j g=;. g v 4 Y-)

s -

8,

. a

{& ~r vvy - & ,

1 .

]s ~,

O '

_r m , ,.

. g w-w x O g w

q.

, Y. ,'

VO a  % "

19 0N i ,

,?

is ['* .

. b45 3 c.

, WL .  %

2 - .

w 0 f =.d +t1 a

1 9 t

0 7,

3

(, w .

(4sr"*n) A W 4 k

- m 'l. 47

+m .t Q, ~; c . .

T 6

+~ y A-Q , 2

.~ m, ,

.g D

y.c -

~4 K25 h

.? ? 5-g-

.a  % -1 3* <G g l I j{ i i

( -

q ,, - -

( . . . - - - . - . - . . . - . . - - - - .- - -- - -

,f

._; *,_. .wMg+. -% ' Ass'w 'k

• 1 * '~i*- 35 W

e 4

~

~

't '

.h &

? ~

!}i .Do N

.) ,  %

'l \l 4'] >

! $ h~

22 l 'b

-4

' =

- @k.

17. @ 'Aw 2 .

3 . ,

~~ I C

/_ i . Kd '  %

~ ~? W 4

w'$ w:r-D u

): M h -

a4 1 g vo

4 oty y

5 a? 4 I

i

~ %s .~ w L.

[-

(% 4, Q .

3 Ps f M) {s E se. @.8.m .

s7s s

. . (&n) -

" ~ ~

W n l.;.

yL M 8 'se' ,

i

/ xg.;ag s

.. ms . c- w w

()

%  ; $$k-

,, .A T x h g--

eie*

. L.4.*%

SQZ O qq .

• i

>. I

, , . , _ . . + . -

.ed--..---.-.,_.--.--..n_,,---3._-.-- -

.y.,, n

,* ^ -~

af., ~\: , R .:y

.... a -- - ,x.. _ ~ ..a - . A-. ... - a .u. - = -- u L 2 ,.n. C a.;4 6 ' ,d e .u a :4La C=h;'i i l I

t M

I I

t I  :

s i k i y t

5 S' Ed . ,

y .

4 C h ') x. ___ y- _ .q

\

Aus a n')

t< W ' @ -

g N

Y WD T ,, .

19 0N ,. Cd s .

_m _

$ 0 r'n.*wL K

w , ; . -a. 3 .

M .. ' m

• (W WA) ~

a 5

'i.

!j*DN '

s p,3,mg

• 4 b 'b i n9

.e9

=@

1 ARqe - \

5' <

i; w e.

y6

4. as 4 -

j 4 -

J

.w- --

_ . . ..y---- ..-%.. .. -~~-. - a..------ - - - - - - =

---

..-y .

w + r. _.LA L A h '- -- Mh%w.i Na 7'4.4

.. .u.-dw2;,%fh.wl ? .9 3 d.rbN i a'l:uim'$w h '

l .

i l ~.

t e

'k 1 .

• A.

= 4 s

2 W4V4

~

g1 p .

1 2' '

\ -

4 s

L, 5

.i

$ A 'r -

9  %

1 q

w, $>

, _ rg -)n -

.s

• e t

e -

3

) S g

?~ $ C8 0fY C-q' , s e . q [:. & w t c

s s e -

pW  :

sc; R

3 s s R iy 3 ~.L #

m t; .L n

"(W . pn) -

j< u Y E.

Vb .) C t 1

[cc."a 1 g4 4 y, y

perx~f ui --

.m j -As, P% .t e z-

, <- n 9, a t -

z~

a we l _ .

. FG f

~...

E

.g .

_ _ . , _ , _ _ _ - - - - p,g,w'*g - ' ' ' '

. a u .. .. _.. . ... _ - -

1 2 3 4 5 6 -

7 8 9 10 11 .SilEET .4 or 6 ('

. e --

~

n e my $ . Ul. S irnes.E.sl*d c b '

c Allegation # t O *E EE }*

or cat'9 U c" U O"* - *E U a3 EE O*

"!"c"$

Sh m* S' S E's 5f4 JE y K 8% b%  %

• e 8a 88 M2 28" n-8 1$n; u6 x

on a~ R" a? En a-c 3 ~t 2

~ .

%5y"8 s 'A @ .

X 2.

[

f F-(

- son.TOGCo s tam.uaina OI-OP-II.18 I !.

, wetutes, d h noT roLLous e BRt4 LenwinG1 ott Ib f. iZ Di?odiode QI-OnP. II.1-28, \ h TE50LlinG IN uwbERSIZE. WEI b s., EF CEifivE UNbEttCuT, Ex CELLIvC IDCOSi~7't , Sd0i:7 lu6Lh EXTenatoui WEChiuG Noi Qu THE bn AbviuG, EXCESSiuE Ci?I4h,iMG IN M IWi M U M T hi(.k N ELI. ,(

viota 14oTiFYrin,a lCLL AA

. TO coavicuiaurio.4 IMSDtc.T Aub .SiG,4 cWucc., onka ouacccon#DLc weu. Geoucre , nah fn/tua.r t u) ELE .b ATA (_ ARb . '

j b,

• TEFEitEutf . QA IO.C SSEE, A G-so, TAate 2 F

}

• j Cionurs CoNTea at tn. spec 4-in,.i F ilui2E. ELEMENTS /lub FINbiHGI ARE Touah in Secrfo.a 3.9 ,

(. Ff0Lunt To REPORT N04.CodFORtmHLES To ANb bEAtuiWGi SPEti f~ic Arion REQ uig r.i.d it.s ')

I' R

• bc sica Psocess. bEFic.IEMCICI. ART SHows

?d

M S ECTiO4 38 ,.4 4

i (bisc.cenacic.s sot ce.nocTcb bociaG As-iivitT UERific Mio)- fh k {i?

n:

r ,>

V,

! lld

[]=

l  % .'

b'

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

• ^

% */ : .

?-

8 o,  % 5 1.

Allegation ,,, M- , , , _ F* ... o,  ;- *5 "! g. o E  !

or Category 8,0 32 T+' EJ^ .5 8  !! t' E.8 TU 3 No.

E 8% 8a  %' +'

& R ER g2 8* 8 - 6

8 88 a t. sb5.%8g$,t2 M6 Er5 28 a= 8? 5 \

re 0

u Gh/ucthOch th .

f 3 i'

i '

f 1

t l l i

i e

• M &ffgcDLE &)RRSc!tOlf .d<t? e bal t auJ Lt P I

' hURe tdC5 2  % T'S fl!U t Utd O A t< 0 l*\ fs L ES s IT LUAT 2'04f'NEO l

%st fca aA han u- se, ac o w . ar a nca w, c. m noc I

. neu+ n suo,us no r av,nca wu sa a ,su a . L o c '

,' 'iC_P-lll> IN ITs A fE.D D t) E P : Pr (,M'P fr 7t uis Ac77 u J s Perd,n<.s  :

L r

D aT 14 0 M3 s (.A> A e W., ' 4. te a F# s 6 tt. % % ts ~n, C 85 F i i): (?(,J,. -

' RtGC L4v P A A Sra t D T144 r T P- i I I loc NCt 06fc 0 4 "Lw L L r.s r-of Cvm LETilA^ 'W W d A40 N or Am ATTEw9 T -fD r g u j p ,7 6 oK E-1-

Ys 'C NW ('$ Y U Uld L kUDST 0N010$$* i

,, I l' 7

I i

f s a  !

ei  ;

. F01A-85-59 .

__ _ _ . _ _ , .m ._._. .

1

• b i

A O .,'..;

- I%Bg l N k2

- I

%co 4m .

. . . Design {

m Process " .

W@finf

-a w$

M^D .'

_ Document h_O. @ Control ro i c.

rm

~

) e3 w y

. 4. Q - Records w

-. -. . - - . - . . - . - - . . .. v*5-P4 g P S ,

(Vault) o i

4 '

^ E. . q Training R dp D (Cert. &

• t g 2; p 3 > Oual.)  ;

o 'e-  ;

m Ek > Cht.&

Testing aseDzPe a I ~  :

O NCRs & , [

$$s, 9 e %.

, CA  !

V . i m i g u QC 4 ~q - Inspection u fg -

3 > , Audits &

3 R g Reporting oo ,

$ I E yh 2.

Procedures yy (Inadequate)

• 4ae E$ Generic 4g N

( Impact g, N% Indeterminate o P.,

~

C ~

. -d m 3, ,

O

\ .

..,....n.

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

---

~m-

_ - _ - , _ 7_ _ -. c - :L._-- ,_________.---- - _ - - _ _

-- 2 - - .:-.- . . . . -. - .~. . . . .- . . . - - --- -

1 "2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 8 a  % 5

j Allegation . M- ._ F* . T; *5 "$ E

or Category No.

&E 32 By U

85 EJ7

%'q

.5

• y M

!! t*

Eg d"

o u

Et 8*

3 8

t

?"

8 88 M t. h5.8 $"

f,t M6 85 28 b=g 8? 5 i.

.URc_ 'iritp. fCr-)r  !

' sD-L i

so stMb/r 3 't-vr/f (/ ?-s!

X ,

h Y I

l QtukQ6,VA66ID l

1 l l

l

• fr A f (. n (:. ar %c An o .T he rius it sw Aw o.u Att:

i 3

hRno6 4ke. Pc Ad (m ue, c ua- h eroo of 19 2l &14f2; l

%4. kuuR Gwrf Cms a s rus of fiua As o es o(CS, .

! i .

gy g ([ C z h l t"( [ fy %gf I

, bN bl

• I k b M.U M k da 4 (b lC h O DW ' iib E- bb W b b8 ' ' i I' (-

t -

N d( l.l' AIC 6Y> 0 E # s ? v .( CE O 4t40eOl?S .T) ba #% ER 4f3 ric g A3 g Qk g., Cg A p p, li .

c a rrio 6 R ec u id % , u rt Mtts Aot (u W cs 7nec tsha s As n7a r_,

{

j An0tri T%t kuo m h Av e our 66 Ew TETerr.u. #E D i

. j.

i:

t l

.. I }'

I l t i l

.  ! t L

hi-

! I i  !'.

Q

,_ .- .. -. ... --. . - - . ---.....-..._...~..w.-.u -..~......: a  :.ea a.-

i

' s L hc f

Wv t fs k ri f

r-E C

~

i e u

a

~

v< s ateupuagaput g a A

• : w k W t S toudm1 opauas Q -

3 yj _

P f <

2 cE

$4 m (agenbspeuI) { Q g'r saanpacoJd g  %

gq

= f n L

$ %C m SupJoday ,

4 c$

g sgtpny g y eg C

. v  % ,4 c uo poadsuI 5 ', c0 3D h L2

{

N3 w6 W

v 4C c Q3 w 1 583N 4

'S (3 c 4 ka

.4 y' n 3 -3 b

< " u,-- vq

.n 6up i a Cy . u 9 .; e -d ' s

&  : fa 3-w w v D 24 e

(*Len0 &

e2sv

,, g' 3J

, 9 22a3) "

1d -

6ututeJ1 X < GL

~

}, o m

.e_y _c_ -& . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . . . .

(4LneA) g ~pw

" spaosay -

j $ y yg gg '

u toaquo3 4 5 o* $E$ ]$ v

~

quamnooO " 4 $ 2 ~L" v1 t- Y $

~ -

2 C V-N -

- ssacoJd o54.)if*<"c t'3 u6;saa 7, u o M2 (A h O" d~

g Hm  ::

CD -

S 8, V u

$N 0  %

5'd - >T s n.

O -

M w

,. g ,

.7- .

' O i 4 <3 *X 1 .- N

%.. . . - . . - . . .....~..___.....e..A... L a di .w. _.+..*Jm. . 41k dC A d .r iU4-.J.n a .', C 4.

7 M

w

! cD w .

e b

a e E, 3e 9 =

> a e t! = c i g < ' c$

! m Q a e - e, <

l A J . G

, d 7 pg 4

~ S k

+

• 7 "

m g63C a

~

^

>a

}-

m x q o

o. y m -

1  ! -

j,ee y o

,o p A o U 2 e 4 4 (W - ff ss .- ) { . h

&N' M  % -

~2 5.Sf d y

La .

• X 8z esm e

'r h >$ h ,5 8s % y )

.t 2 z v j;

n w38 -

n 2-g e_ _-- a5 se A J n, m-gv y-ti v

v WD ,9- '3 0

o V w fE PAN

/ a w g* t)

$ SN 2 l 0 (s re k b

m d 3, c-hc3 vW w%:

ew wfNW 'f

, . . - a. 1, .

e- -w 3 o.g u~ u. u IO] N

• W

^

4eis v 1,e.Y E.; , ye wm

.m 2

- go w - Er ._

I$ w,mg 3 S S GE 1 eo= 5 1- 0 's - e e M m h [C "d

% j"u] my e<y 3 {- { e8.- h E 5$ 3, gG;4g 9

2aaee D" ~,

C &

pM- JM

, 1 A T e<QE i 6 ~1 L

g Ke \ ~. -

w i 1 d

i 4 N <I E < m . .a <

6

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

, . . . , t .. .:., : : . .~. : u.. . .u.2L:..

J i 6 g

y

'i $ <

k ,)

h '

. *a  :-

?

c

. 9

. t., ,.

O Ic b $ 0 k

e L.; g .

- T  % d y  %

~ <

@ 0 T y *3 03w D

$* Q$ 2 A h w o

$ ~

> tr- -

1 Pg S 4e  ?

j e w -

te o

e :

er a y< --J e $

4 W . %7 >

c 3

g Ub p *C

?

fD D #

g d[

'! g* [

m au  ;

-Q m -

.8 v

s

-s a

a e

e

g C2 w

~

, ,e e i

%q dia.=i-r A

• f,

$i

'5 5

,j

3 I Et 4Y

'/ hO o

'^ -

f3py j {

b

_a w C; d .a t d 2

y

<2 @4 h e .J

) C ,

.:5 6 e$'

>) C A L C $g s

~WGa 1 $ 9 4 3 19 ary VD A a m i e* :v:

e 5

- il,l a

o ~~

m s, z t

o EOoS %2 Ogn{[

h [v M,,4,,

gk .-

E gd D dy D'4 g y - I #'

I

% y o eq ,

- JMy n

w* * . - ~

e b

H bw nJ c(

C.

se Ef r O TW N { .b =. C f' $ bb.

• 5 ., Y 5"N G b'8 n' M y ec l e=e _v-e D t.$ b N.y s k

[m O by Y( b *N 0 ha y 8J bdb e M qu - d U em h k s ~h o o

, r.g 4 ,

f M r

• N

-l. i ee n9 i tf c., .,

>< 1 - <,

g .D o C-Q

'!.. 4 L

, .. s. r- i 4

=f

.i:.- ' ( q % 5 W dd

<t g d

g g

+

,1 i

~ ** .e,. ~'

- - - - - - --n --

5 *

" 8 9 10 11 F

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 T $

8 m "% a l Allegation , y, ,_ gie , , , p ey [g , g or Category 8, g g2 Ty gg 7;q ,g as o g gg y n 3 l

No. ;g By ggg y h o gm 4 .  ;

an as at na g2,ge w:s sa n E=g s2 a - .

-l '(W A'O y g g N WW'/tt-o2-  !

llAt t i/hAd u-.cvs N r FAdEO Tb F,f.uirk.) 4 t. sw u.t Av o A or o.u e e v af r 44.L (3 A Pens. Arm.

1 Section C of WASH 1283, " Review of arogram by Management," contains the requirementforaregularmanagemenYauditoftheQAfunction. It requires, j in part, that " management above the level of the management having direct i responsibility for the activity under discussidn [QA, in this case]... ,

i I

periodically perform an audit of the activity." This requirement is sup-F ported in the TUEC FSAR, Section 17.2, which states that "The Vice Presi-

, dent, Nuclear Operations shall, on a regular basis, not to exceed 24 months,  ; i' l

.  ! perform or authorize independent management audits of QA activities..."

@TheTRTfoundthatallsiteQAactivitiesweresubjectedtoauditsbythe f TUEC Corporate QA (Dallas) office. These.audir.s appeared to have_.t E pro-f' per frequency-and scope, nh-ene-eiceeption; Corporate QA apparently failed to assess the overall effectiveness of the various site quality control [

functions. TUEC representatives stated that there have been no regular b' r.

assessments or reviews of the adequacy of the total QA program by upper b i .

p'

' management, as required in Criterion II of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and- i:

WASH 1283 j and as committed to in the FSAR. (See AQ-!?? fr- W1Linnal 1Meemstlon-cegarding--TUEChaagement.overv.iaw af cPSES_QA function).  ;;

r t;

(RCE1Ita B, I). is e e Of </not A t yp- psy, 41[/gtl?;.o f a itf /f c'll-o z) g

?

F.

~

F!

. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l 11 q $

8 . ~n 5 -

Allegation m g- ._ g'd .m

d5 lg o E ,

32 or Category 8, g Tf'  ;; J7 .5 g 21 j' 'g .g I tj 3 o gy gg u, y g gg u No.

?

8 88 at ;58 4 f,g

$2 M6 85 .t a $=g g as 8?

.g 2

I I

(JAf0C OJ0All Y hj Y l

- f i

1 l

t l

. s e .tn) ADEa u he t LS in Uod CIMCo R win 6 koRescTt al Actiw SYstw I I

I

. / tot t&tivl Activt, t In reviewing the nonconformance reporting system, the TRT noted that during f 1983, 18 NCRs identified the need to retrain construction personnel in the i.

I t

f- i content and requirements of QA procedures. For example, the TRT found [ .

. ,p ' that TUEC corrective actian request (CAR)-024, which dealt with inadequate P

) construction training and records, was open for 12 months. After CAR-024 ,

was closed, five other CARS identified inadequate training of construction fI personnel. The TUEC construction, startup/ turnover survelliance group f identified the above conditions in CAR-009, dated April 4, 1984, which had iR p' u not been closed at the time of the TRT nspection./t oF Kt y ggt wThis further supports '

the TRT finding of inadequate followup of audit findings. g1 r,

e ,

j i i

.l

!I il i

!l 1

i

! i C :i

I

1 '

]

1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 };

7 E  !

1- 8 o, 5 i Allegation . #- g'* . o, 7, *5 =

E j, d[%

,_ o

- or Category g2

• g 8,0 Tf'  ;; J7

.5  !! t* It 3 i

k.  %" 82 8a  %'% # R ER a E" 4 -

d 8? 88 33 e':58 j$>U 2 M6 E2 Ra E"C 8? 2 l,

.; 3 ..

hk{K gqu;)) .

d $

m I 1

I.

p y $ffgctru6 $C (Le  !'

t. [nt 2 BC TLU6 dLL M VV i N -

~

.l h

A yh .-Asr example of ineffective followup action was found that pertained to a ps def tetency identified in audit TCP-23, performed in September I981. Audit b<

TCP-68, conducted in March 1983, attempted to verify corrective action of [

y,8 that deficiency, but logs that would document the corrective action had {i: ,

been destroyed.

Y A new deftetency was written at that time and the responst.

was accepted, but the corrective action is'still unvertfled. e i

i

. I *

, - l i

s

' ' ts '

. i t

e ,

t i I  !

i n

4

. . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ -.__----__-----____--__r- - - - -

~

. 1 2 3 4 5- 6 7 8 9 10 11  :

3 l e m3 8 i

! Allegation "

"~

O *E EE }*  !

or Cat'9* = G - *E

• U =L SE #* I m- .** lE k's S t.: .:D - K Ch *2 bM  % >

3 a. e g8= n 2-e ,s =

e- - o 2g,; sz3 ma o~ pa: e.s

a. -

=

3.e.

i i l

F

@f/DC 0#f ALL y /

. i ,

. I t,

t 4

r e it/Jiri Ad StG #A A40TB RS '

[

i g

. D at: A6 IQdt - LWL. %E bod RTAff of V hAo Aety MaoiwAL [

E, o r 76thW tekt_. . GEcr4 ear F 3 As to.u ,5 Mc A Ts6ess 50 A TCcL[c4 I.

(prF  ; D E5ct Pz.tch . jlker, kwo m u>tR5 /w a,.6rt/ M f'u(.cp , Ai Auorep%nc j Le ts 4AISL . N 44. 2. 23 fd' Cow s tb ur ts!,

. [-

• The TRT interviewed TttEC management to ascertain its position regarding the questionable qualifications of their auditors. TUEC stated that their

auditors do not have to understand technical content or reason for a pro-cedure in order to verify the procedure is implemented. The TRT also found 2

,, that TUEC auditors did not conduct timely followup audits to verify that '

l

• i' t Offective action was taken to correct the deficiencies that were reported p,s a result of th,eir audits (i.e., TUEC Audits TCP-23, 40, & 68).

e a

a < - -

j p_...___ __._ _.._

__.x . - - - . _ , 2 c a.__. : -. . _. ..n_ ; . .u _

- :a  ;

)

I b t.)

M s' L- E 4' 4 s c y d '

D Q Y

r) -

a w

-I .6 C" T .3 < 4 s ;

• V - s c-

• V .

3  %. E g '

c3 - .J  %- '

C 4 et ,, so ' %

T h$ 3*

- e s, p .s <. ,

3  ;

7 4

• C 14 m 3 d E Y. b n;k b Nc o

e

a e

,t-e e v 4 a - u q '

9 -#

]. -i MVi '

q s

Y

$ ,2 w w

' ( V

^^ ' '

$ .u & .a

. n= @

~

.:. .9  %

k$)

% E -

i wE _ __ r .

ese e'

- 4 F

3 *g

• 3 >a Cs .i - *

= ~

e w ma y A'r p g .e g O s y o .S ,

q-

,,3 im 1 ,2 4 y4 < ,3 f 0 3 eu .

y St

• 9 WD gf _u, A O C

-e

'*

• aaU

~~~ v v.) - r p Q Y b 'l- c  %

o eq 2g

,ey 4 t b 3 y i 'm I'M Y, d ^ 4 e

)

~

u La .

fl

$5 $$ $ $C M#W

c. m a. r 'e b 1 $ ji f ~$

.w~ete <- ~

o e

g i- w e Cv e '% fd 4 ~4 w (W

WA) yeg c u - .

d2 O g jg ,y e o a e = a .y

%O @ P. 4 q c . c ic ,

i t'.4s $. S S ' C m__ -

o u - 5 mg @ 18

• V 3 5.=.$e$c; . 'a a

, -: .u r.

wg o-3j$$

dE* -

ea v

,s n s .t

~

1 n -

d c a 6 - o W g

~ q

.' W ~0

.I.

<d d

b i

g c

.i.'- K 1

't

s. -_a ._ _ -. s 2.. - ua -

' - _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . <. ._._..__._.w.. i x

^" <

g 'O 4 *

- t h L 0 d y 3 J I 9 .* $ O t 5 N E b .

,a u e <

E < . D. 5  %

^

'" Qtn{ $@6 d h" V

e

%a ~s V A

9 <<C ess 2 W

.t a 2 ,-, - .=. I.

% 'X. ('$3 iB 5 53

- 7.,f"'  %;&

f84 $

4 u-4-}'

,3 M -

9 ";50 j$ c

.w~4~w i~s "4; 3; av s 2 s d:

• i W E _ __ r .

s 2 0; c .s ww

=a

> d e 3i .,-

o w fG )o44 g $ w% . V D -

2 % u( 3 Y P c i m_ L Jaa G e Wc

' g r.p. - n 24t' 5s 2 ,

• V

1. Y.

) g u a

e D'd "

- e3  % b d

'@ kQ 'ap 7 m O "e 2

e 2 um4 2

1. 9 9N , .s , w

[--m y 3 .x we C

.y-e Q3 - m 3 $-mh Y, w -  ? 3 v1

_ N Y f wJ 's 2 rJ w g

,:V 7 '" d n eN v d*ydp

. ~ ' , - i.,

,c Cen.7 a d I 'S ~

W s'sJ$

ilj~l3 ~

, / m/**>g S gs i lsb 23*t=Jd e , !,

s 2 4 td. a o bds bIh V

' ~~

."Ti h

if QBW }3af.

I

% o 2 . = 's

\

\ 4 S e i

. E < <

t

- . . . = + = - - - . -,e-

..,.-.,7 . - * + ., " - =

9 -_

'; i *' s

, , "_-.g'

~

7 ._ s _m_L,_-. *L. >

'.m._ _ '_ . , , , , ,,__%,_, ,__,__,,__,,_.,_____.J.., , , ,_ _,, ,[ ;

)@ .

W v

a a

h -

5 u,

q

~

D

}Q Q t M

5t

} 3 J

g b V o

.-* W 4

- % M y _v _m_ _r_ t

Q e

.~

4 . k ]6

e

~$

1. , ,

y s

.a 6

7

- 'h.--

- $ l 4 -

.rys.#"jd"Y d .6 *

• i g =c u .

M djh 3 If 3

4 5E- L 3s g

g $ y_ _y ,_ - -

4< Y Ev 4I ~'A

..~ n d n

v .

N )aY Y w e '

\9 e 4:k 33d 3 $3 L. %

I "t~-

f 9 OfV 4

• Q R

% j

,a Ot

... -. A 3 c..g j A C&

Q![W =s

~

a 2 m 3 2cd5 gpu2 d%g t-

'f,g@*-v;rd W - tt ;g tfv8A2..g}

<w a o

en?

. " (W tan

: u a%3 3s*<

y D 6. s_ > -

g w ~~.

4

/ "-V / Q /G Q W6 - w%.) < 4 <. Y i R l'd ds4 ov~ge v

1. d "~ '

rJ. r4 -

- 4 j er l m b-

, g4 a

<C 5,

C t g

1

{ <

.. _a__ _ _ ; _; . _ . . _

]

i

f.  % .

,IE$

- p .

O is %  !

C 1 Ir

~

qm ,

i o Design

~ c.-O' 99 h 9 p 3 '~

r, 7 v3 M

$ Process -i m g 5- ~s> 9 f 1

3 m O

D # _ca K.. n Document .j g( Control N O 5 o h n w

i m

$n g C, 4 . r-&[- Records (Vault) w l o q

. . . . - - . - .--- _ r -.-.......g  ;

3..- e cn T

s .- k. Training f m (Cert. &

b 4 / 3 Qual.)

n d. 6 .

2P

• dQ g I 5 P% p Cqpt. &  !

6 -

f n Testing

• N M $ i LP w i UQn b

• a m NCPs & ,[

@m k' mQ  ; a ,

me 5 o a -

C O

} f. d X QC Inspection *;

n- q K

T -

?!  :

D,F, Audits & +

p a hC n@  % { Reporting  !

k C g i gP Procedures  !

m t' (Inadequate)

• g

~

c-m e

{n

~

(  ?

e g Generic Impact g ;,

i a w Cs p m Indeteminate o ,

k O'!

0 ,

m a b'  ?

l , ,

l e r P

......--e.- + --.--~+-*.*,s.,,* -*-e-+.s. _

.**~.e*-w--ws,-.w=y.._ _

=

4sa . 7

- _ _ . :: , ' t' , ; i. > , * '

1 E

t 9 s . t O ?85 t f Da l i E% '-

'8 E i 4* j Design p "gr{ Process -

y ? -o n G;

f--m Ndf Document .!

5 om - Control N 1 tg p b. (~5

(

t . A ~

& *G e l gg W q i

i .

Records w g- z (Vault) l

. . . . . _ . . . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - I.

a h,, .P_... E i

! ct >< Training 9 h '3:* >n ' (Cert. &

• kSd ;b Oual.)

f~ E [ J d E?o' '

Cgpt. &

o (h

, a e Testing , *

• YN * \

~

[ U ry NCRs.& .  ;

" @ [}b k

[t { gp &

L QC Inspection * -

@3%( y y

? t 0

• Audits &

2 Reporting m '

3

.1 f 7 :?  % t k f pe Procedures C h (Inadequate)

[FEm

'a e E

~, - ~

2 *b '@

' Generic -

a t Y Impact g' CI e w

pa k,

Indeterminate

s-

D%

bi t

a h -

n 3 s.

7 b >

If .

l 0

h n i

- ~

l

.C r m- -

' - - ~' -

.- .- ..-._.._m..

Ca

, c e

en e Nc o m gm -

Allegation , t- ._ pd , , , .  ;; dc 3 g. o E or category g 3e Er E;c .c a g at 2.g It 3 [,

h.  %" St 8  %

& a ER a 8* 4 -

8 *$,t"

.ll 8? 88 at 45'% M6 85 R& E"C 3? 5 l' i

Ilb y2 / . Y q r i.

p.

t i

t

I t

?

-i r

Porreteers T i n c e ,e. n c a c t,0,u i<s sec< mm au+<. tv roc ntn- As,u e  !

'LiviL/SWu.cutfAc_ (tushc nh n)sen 3sf ceLN r [. '

[.Ss6R i No 41.3 pw 7, (No.-tz.1)  % egggo vou-e-m>A wsent&t waee ass est.u em -HmoW/f 5 3 uAv at af etTrew 9hcaoars.

OC 's kms(cctswfhsuLG wee BDs7ErwnArc !^J'thc dgSyn,g gr ry,wa c

[

Accept / 'ed. curuk - l' i  !

s I  :

e j .' .

4 .

[-:

i t.

. fs .

I

.- . . . .:~.  : . ..a -. .- - - .....- ~ - -- ..---. . . . . - . . - - . - - . . ...=..=....=-- -

t5

'a v

w

/

L h

~

ateupuagaput g d

- y 3 -3e

.O q toedmI opauas q s g a}.

u s k d'

< ';- T

, b b e (agenbapeuI) @ by3T saanpasoJd -

o > G t-T 5 @ $ 5M e Supaoday C d .3 y s2tpny N ,g Q U y y .A,

- ca w w T H D  :

% uopoadsul

} j E 'j 3D w <a H 'N u

.g O tJ oO 3 R 1mv w WIa' s- s. <

va c

• g sH3N N s

~. .C < a< r1.<

z _~

9- Qw 3 a 0 -.O m Sup 1 9mH 4 y e2 7 te a 8 "b

(*Leno s

'C s4 Whrs o .

e a 9 *2Ja3) 4 6ututval &

y e

, -Q

. .u e}gp 5

.- w o (4LneA) 4 5 4 4 $

M spaooag -

2 4 ' O c-Q2 G

4

,r.

T .

' O 7 4 Loaquo3 N

Susanood Q'J

-N 4m V g ua M

s. i t: v) 4 N #

- ssacoJd ddG 3 . . . . _ _ . . . .

cD -

! S 8, I

%3 N

-io . -

Q

.- d .

< l l

'.* l l

l

..-.--y._.--....._ .

- . . . .. . . .. ...a.. . -.

b

! 9 .

4

$ I$5 pg  ;

is % l

'8 E f q=

'. ~.

Design g

~

l ppt Process -'

m o5 e-O-urnwm o0 ,

' f::7 D M 'g Document 5

~

y Control '* [

D$ ES

> P u $$g yf e= es yg . Records w' '

(Vault)  ;-

fo' p ___. 5 __....-Ga R l

m p .

9 y. 9-f  ; Training

~ ' ^

k i .$, h 9 5 ,h ou55!i' t mn> . >

4 l og Q, dg3 3 i

t. & 6 c.

m Tz .o y w .o--

m t~

T ting o' '

h PC ,

n gg f"N X NCRs & ,

M

$ o tu o '

l Px g QC [

Inspection in 3>c u m s c [

6 y

g5 g-3 Audits &

Reporting i

Q m{

5 O c,

I.

O

% 2 Procedures i

4. u (Inadequate)

• f 70 j heG y aE b'.

Generic E DQ 3, Impact  ;; j

% n -

5 m . t s

9 C [(

,m E Indeteminate

~o V ~r 6

@2n F -

f D '

[

e  ?

n h s  ;

O q x G t, t

y

, , , . - _ ,ryr.,~- - .- - . .=4 - * - == ----.=*.-*.-,--me.

=n9--- - * - ~ ~ . . * ~ =-...,...-.m~,s. er- e.es.

i

• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1

8 o,  % 5

. Allegation ,,, y- ,,,, F* .. L *5 "Ea o E i or Category &g g2 TA' E47 .5

• g Ot' i .g It 3 4

m. "

8#  %'% ER

! ;E 8 88 8

33 458 ft 02 M6 85 RM $"3 a 8" 3?

4 5

i i

i a- n3 Y .

@. 4 4

i I.

f i

a Tl1[C.k @f.fSteh16 of .5(6Md i( Arii CM S TIPO.(T/ t- ~Dff bcabC16:3 L44% lA-.---

V ia ct R st. w c) ; Renu teFw WM if '" '"c'Y I

lssfR UD \\ > l loir' 9 AtK- 3 f t %b i' Taec. $io er !AoSad Atref SEMAuN r % E00 rE3 6out f Nin 6 locFR57trM rd  !

(d t.eaenesum -

i .

L Q k ,4p pig 5 0)Ed8 36ff9Md M M ul! & S IN O M s f f0C C & W h 2mf m wtht7 -[

• 1!k i.

t l  !.

I i i P

, t I

e t

.I fi y

i

~

a:.. - . - ... . _ : . ._ l . - . . - -

. : --. =.-.,.2.: w.ua . . ~ c-k '

I g

t k'

c >

y  %.. cM

=

5

~

d-e5# n.

ateupuagaput 3

q, c

4 (/

2 y $

toedmI spauas y

L3y ,.

u.) o .

f T t,

'e (agenbapeuI) h y saanpaoOJd 6, 4 o u) u co Supaoday d $ mb d T 5%Ipny y, .

o < ~

C 2 b i ~ uo poedsur sj C . q C' " J 3D

<bU UN 9

CL o C/.

M G

• n $ 2 T SH3N ><. g G

@ i V A 2 m Sup i '-

q T '4 W - A w i 3D <

h d g4 e i-(

• Leno T *2 Jag) v ,f -

Sulutval y@ 3 8

v

&__.. _.h.o o.

4 4.

6.- . . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . .

(2tner)

" spJocay d [g - @J d

_ g w Ms ~ .

! o o i

~ w ,uo3 ~ 3v j x4 -

guaansou d $~ ,3 d d ~

EDG

- ssu oad Wl- 4 u6)sa0 Q,~'~~ ,,

eD 7 -

$E 3 va N g s

o. ~' s) e0 .

+

.r-

~ '

i .

"*k N -4t ._

e b-><%r.

r. _-

. . ~ M ,A 1 . . Z_'_

d .c.' .i_ _'. .._ .a _ .- -

.L--_ -

r _ w w.t_ i , A' . . .'* .w.

I t

V P '

i 8 4

}1 c b i b

{-

U t

g % ? 4 3 <- s%

~

1,I c

i; .

e5" r j

4 ateupuataput f

m a sa 1 .2 2 - ~

s s

3 jS sonder  %

> $6 hC

]-

oi"*u's m n

e,j e 9g -

2

. (asenbepeur) i 6

h j:' 8, 2 6 saanpasoJd  % 5 5 6

5 Sa < V M

tJ

.: > ~

l co Su paodag T s25pny

) }

y

$)k T

e, I$ X

.a 4

. C DG j r.- uo p3adsuI }

e q g' 30 I- - = A i s 3 6

' d, 0 = q$t< F v Y3 [ h p ,k a

i sB3N g g T Iq. ]

p 'dJ d i.-

m Suttsai j { gj I Ik a y

G d T <

f- P q c L-e t ,

eD

' 'A a w

(*Len0 9 *2193) J ' 3 %0 vs 2Q q 4 -

6ututval ta tJ

-D 3

e a $ 4 %o = .a.

(2 LI JA)

" . d .g: T

,' spJO388 d y (-

@Q s 3d u3 {a 5 -

N [0J2UO3 oJ "

u

<1 S] $C tuamnoou 5 J C j ;g 4 e 23 >W

= '

- ssa3OJd , .

u6tsa0

. C --

cD ,SU f -

28, i, Ej

.s .

ThI ge

.!. 28a -s

,%, y

-l . ,' rY 3,

~

N j *

-S o

i .

i .' 2 1

i

,/

s +

c t.

t

'b O .

e 3

. 4

~ - ,

B ,o z .

1 % 98 h W h E%

. h t s jv s ,

'8 8-Q=

y 4-' O %w k  %

Y~

p .

N Desian 4 Process p' 4 N.

1, .

s 1 .-

s.

3 ~ 1 g Document