Latest revision as of 04:18, 15 December 2024

Text

Rev 6 to JS-IX-14, Defect Removal & Repair by Welding. Related Info Encl
	ML20072T323
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook, 05000000
Issue date:	01/30/1981
From:	Geske D, Hinkley H; PULLMAN POWER PRODUCTS CORP. (FORMERLY PULLMAN, INC.)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20071K200	List: ML20072T288; ML20072T303; ML20072T320; ML20072T323; ML20072T329; ML20072T344; ML20072T350; ML20072T358; ML20072T360; ML20072T388; ML20072T400; ML20072T404; ML20072T411; ML20072T418; ML20072T443; ML20072T458; ML20072T465; ML20072T473; ML20072T477; ML20072T491;
References
	FOIA-82-524 JS-IX-14, NUDOCS 8304080031
	Download: ML20072T323 (114)
	v • d • e

.-

.3. -

eq Pu!!inan Power Producis 33_;x_34 D ves.c,n ne 8%ur%n ine.orticratec

=

DoCL".'E N T r.O.

PREPARED BY: D.R. Geske ArPaovEo sy: H. Hinkley M l @ 1/30/81 I:

7 SEABROOK 4

PROJECT PROCEDURE stfoNg e

'1085 h?,ee

~

LATIST REV. DATE e

1/30/81 DEFECT REMOVAL AND REPAIR BY WELDING 4

~

i DIVISION OF PULLMAN INCORPORATED HEADQUARTERS AT UE&C CODE WILLIAMSPORT, PENHSYLVANIA 06 ^

aCY15:0N racPanED BY APPROVED BY INITIALS OCSCRIPTION I

00 l

7-31-78 D.F. Gehr K.A. Swisher KAS I'nitial Issue 01

.9-15-78 D.F. Gehr K.A. Swisher KAS.

Revised para. 5.z; Acced para. J.z.1, 4.1.4, 4.2.2.1 & Foms 18,19 & 22

~

02 Revised para. 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 6-9-79 H. Hinkley K. Freed KF 6.1, 8.1, 8.2, Foms 18,19,19A,22,32; changed para. 4.2.21 to A; Deleted para.

3.2.1, 5.4, 5.5, added index.

i :i 03 Revised para. 3.1, 4.1.3, Added para. 3.1.1 6-19-80 B. Willard H. Hinkley HH 3.1.2, 3.1.3, Attach A page 2 of 2 Fom 38 04 Revised rom 18, 19, 19A 22 8-7-80 H. Hinkley A. Eck AE Added para. 4.1.4 05 1-13-81 D. Geske H. Hinkley

HH,

Extensively Revised 1-3 81 D. Geske H. Hinkley Extensively Revised r

I B304080031 8303'04

~

PDR FOIA KINDER 82-524 PDR

.r--

..-.mv

-,,.-,....,-~---.--....-..,2--....-,--

w-ww.,

-,e--.i---e,....-

,,%-+-~,r

.~c.--...

., e m e re

-,-.,...-_m.,..-..--.-,-w,

,-..=--,-

,(c.)

Pullman Power Products JS-rx-14

/

Div+on of Put::r.an incorporated

//

DoCU?.*ENT No.

D.R. Geske APPROVED BY:

H. Hinklev

~2/8

$liN 1/30/81 PREPARED BY-I'.

PAGE To BE USED NO.

2 or,9 tiiR00K oNLY oN JoS #

PROJ

.)

PROCEDURE 1.0 SCOPE Jhis procedure shall be employed to remove unacceptable indications from l,ase materials or welds, and Subsequent repair by welding to meet the 1.1

equirements of the applicable Code.

IJnacceptable defects, detected by examinations required by-Code and/or The acceptance /

1.2 s,pecification, shall be reported under this procedure.

rejection criteria for conditions discovered by the required examinations are defined by the applicable Code and outlined in the approved Project Procedures.

Jn-Process conditions which are corrected upon discovery, by controls fmposed on the Process Sheet for that operation and made acceptable to 1.3 the Field QC/ Welding Inspector, are not considered a repair reportable under this procedure.-

Jn addition, this procedure does not include P.eceiving Inspection 1.4 activi' ties which are governed by Project Procedure X-5.

2.0 REP 0plING REQUIREMENTS Arc strikes shall be circled on. the material with soapstone or an a) proved marker and reported by the Field QC/ Welding Inspector through 2.1 tle NDE Supervi'sor to Engineering on an Arc Strike Surveillance Report, r,ee Attachment A.

Unacceptable Field Weld conditions which cannot be corrected at the 2.2 time of discovery and made acceptable to the Field QC/ Welding Inspector, liy controls imposed by the Process Sheet for that operation, shall be circled with soapstone or an approved r.arker and reported by the Field i

QC/ Welding Inspector through the NDE Supervisor to Engineering on a Weld Repair Order, see attachment B.

IJnacceptable Base Material conditions shall be circled on the material with soapstone or an approved 0Idiirehand reported by the Field QC/

2.3 Welding Inspector through the NDClupervisor to Engineering on a Base l

ttaterial Surveillance Report, see attachment C.

Unacceptable conditions identified through application of approved Non-destructive Examination methods shall be reported by the NDE 2.4 In Technician in accordance with the appropriate Project Procedure.

inddition, the Technician shall plot the indication on the material with soapstone or an approved marker and report the condition through the NDE Supervisor to Engineering on a Weld Repair Order, see attachment, B.

sF 1.ot A (4-79) 7

~

~

)

\\

E=J Pullman. Power Products Jx-Ix-u Oms on of Pullman locorporated f /

DoCUVENT No.

M

$i?U 1/30/81_

PREPARED BY:

D.R. Geske APPROVED BY:

H. Hinkley SEABROOK QeE 4'085

.e 3 e,,

~

o PROJECT PROCEDURE Y

2.0 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS - CONTINUED 2.5 If the conditions reported in 2.1 through 2.4 above exceed. limits as indicated below, a Non-conformance Report in accordance with Project Procedure XV-2 is required.

2.5.1 Customer /0wner defined repairs as follows:

A.

Following final heat treatment.

B.

Following final hydrostatic test.

C.

Repair be welding of end preparations.

D.

Additional repair beyond the third cycle of repair.

E.

Repair of base material which exceed 1/3 actual thickness F.

Repair of cracks.

3.0 INDICATION REMOVAL 3.1 Upon discovery of unacceptable Field Weld conditions, the Field QC/

Weloing Inspector shall point out the condition to the crafts assigned.

The crafts msy eliminate the condition using approved methods con: olled by the Process Sheet sequence event which required the inspection or examination.

If the condition is not eliminated or reduced to an a:ceptable size within acceptable weld deposit size, work shall be stopped and a report per paragraph 2.2 is required.

4 3.1.1 As an example, if during a visual inspection following a surface preparation for examination, an unacceptable condition is dis-covered, the crafts may repeat the " Prepare Surface for Examina-~

tion" sequence event. Any work necessary may be perfonned other than depositing filler metal.

3.1.2 Weld deposit may be reduced to the minimum allowable during attempts to remove unacceptable conditions.

If upon reduction of deposit size to minimum the condition is not reduced to an acceptable size, work shall be stopped and the appropriate report rendered.

3.1.3 If the condition is reduced to an acceptable size, the obvicus and out of the ordinary weld profile condition shall be reted at the process sheet checklist entry for the examination documented.

sF 1.ot A (4-79)

= =-

=

4j Pullman Power Products JS-Ix-14 g/

Oms.on of Pullman incorporated

//

DOCUMENT No.

r PREPARED BY: D.R. Geske APPROVED oY:

H. Hinklev M

lijn 1/30/81 s

.m h3 SEASROOK To BE UsED U

PAGE PROJECT PROCEDURE oNLY oN Jos #

No.

4 of 9 3.0 INDICATION REMOVAL - CONTINUED 3.2 Upon receipt of an Arc Strike Surveillance Report, Weld Repair Order, or Base Material Surveillance Report, the NDE Supervisor shall assign a control number and enter the document into the Repair Control Log, f

see attachment D, and. proceed as follows:

3.2.1 Contact Ouality Engineering-Records and determine the final heat treatment, hydrostatic test and repair cycle status.

3.2.2 Record the status on the document, file a copy for record i

and forward the original to Engineering for issue to a Defect Removal Process Sheet, see attachment E.

3.3 Upon receipt of the document from the NDE Supervisor, the Engineering Department shall issue a standardized " Defect Removal Process Sheet",

see attachment E, with the Arc Strike Surveillance Report, Weld Repair Order or Base Material Surveillance Report, attached.

3.3.1 Process sheets shall be identified by unique numbers as follows:

A.

Field Weld Repair work shall be identified by the identifica-tion number assigned on the current revision drawing.

B.

Base material work, including arc strikes, shall be identified by the assigned control number and indication number entered on the appropriate report, see paragraph 3.2 and attachments A, B and C.

3.3.2 All unacceptable ~ indications, including Arc Strikes, shall be removed by grinding, chipping, machining, are gouging, or flame gouging.

A.

For low Alloy mateHals, i.e., P-4 and P-5, adequate preheat (same as for welding) shall be established prior to any thermal cutting or gouging.

B.

Upon completion of any thermal cutting operation, all

. cutting residue shall be removed and the cut surface shall be ground back to bright metal, removing a minimum of 1/16".

C.

When working Stainless Steel products, only Stainless Steel wire brushes and approved grinding wheels shall be used.

l:.

sF 1.ot A (4-79) w

,nn

-v-,

n

.,,,,--.,,--m---,,,,,n,w,

~

l Jg Pullman Power Products aS-Ix-14

/

Orv sion of Pulirran incorporaiec

//

DoCUVENT No.

1/30/81 PREFARED BY:

0.R. Geske APPROVED BY:

H. Hinklev c

SEABROOK To BE USED W =GL Q PAGE PROJECT PROCEDURE cNt.Y oN job #

d G eJ e No.

5 of 9 3.0 INDICATION REPOVAL - CONTINUED 3.3 Continued 3.3.3 Upon removal of all visible evidence of the indication (s),

the defect removal area (s) shall be examined by the Liquid Penetrant or Magnetic Particle method to assure complete removal of the indication (s) or reduction to an acc.eptable size.

3.3.4 Following removal of the indication (s) and acceptable.

~

non-destructive examination, the NDE Technician shall measure and report the cavity size.

A.

Mechanica11y measure the length, width and' depth of the cavity at it's longest, widest and deepest points.

If be recorded as "THRU-WALL".6m, the cavity depth shallfv the cavity penetrates the wall J

bmsunousq p.

B.

Ultrasonically measure the actual wall thickness of the base material in the area of the repair cavity. Record the actual wall thickness with the cavity dimensions.

4.0 CAVITY EVALUATION 4.1-Upon receipt of a Defect Removal Process Sheet for evaluation, the Quality Assurance Supervisor or his designated representative shall notify the appropriate Quality Engineer-Process personnel of the receipt. The Quality Engineer-Process personnel shall post their log to reflect the current location status of the Process Sheet (s).

4.2 The Quality Assurance Supervisor or his designated representative shall i

be responsible for the evaluation of indication removal sites through review of the defect removal documentation to determine regilirements for further action. The evaluation process may be conducted by the Weldin3 Engineer or a designated Engineering representative who has been specifically trained in the application of this procedure.

4.2.1 Non-conformance Report Required A.

Only those conditions indicated in paragraph 2.5 above shall require initiation.. of NCR.

B.

Document the appropriate steps on the Defect Removal Process Sheet to indicate: NCR required "YES"; Process

~

Sheet required "NO"; Weld Repair P.S. issued "NA".

Initial and date all three hold points.

sF 1.ot A (4-79)

WM,

. ~..

J Pullman Power Products as-Ix-14

~

Div sion of Pullman incorporated

//

DoCUVENT No.

D. R. Geske APPROVED SY:

H. Hinkley

8

$1s U 1/30/81 PREPAAEo BY:

To BE USED PAGE SEABROOK oNI.Y ON JoS #

No.

6 of 9 PROJECT PROCEDURE 4.0 CAVITY EVALUATION - CONTINUED 4.2 Continued 4.2.1 C.

When a non-conformance is detennined, the items involved shall be segregated when possible by the Field QC/ Welding Inspector and/or a Hold Tag shall be affixed adjacent to the condition requiring the NCR. Should multiple cavities be non-conforming, one Hold Tag shall be sufficient for hardware control.

Affixed Hold Tags shall remain in place pending disposition D.

of the NCR at which time a Repair Tag shall be affixed per Project Procedure XV-2.

E.

Completion of weld repair shall then be consistent with the sequence of events shown in Project Procedure XV-2, Non-Conformance Procedure.

4.2.2 No Further Repair Action Required A.

Surface indication in weldments and base material may be removed without subsequent repair welding provided:

(11 The remaining,sec on thickness, verified as indicated in paragraph (3.3.3 above, is not reduced below accept-able weld depYo ize for welds and 87.5% of nominal g },3,4) ' ' ' wall for base material.

m._..

'I

(.21 The depression, after indication removal, is blended uniformly (3:1 taper) into the surrounding surface.

q l

(31 The area is examined by the Liquid Penetrant or Magnetic Particle method, as appropriate, to assure the indication has been removed or reduced to an acceptable limit.

NOTE: In addition to Liquid Penetrant or Magnetic Particle examination those surface indications i

discovered through Radiographic or Ultrasonic examination methods shall be verified as removed or reduced to an acceptable limit by the same method.

i

~

(.41 The accepted cavity is identified as evaluated by per-manently marking the adjacent base material with the assigned identification, see paragraph 3.3.1 above.

sF 1.o f S (4-79)

__(,;

X M

-~

Pullman Power Products JS-ix-14 y

o.v.s.on c 4

p Punman warporaieo l

PREPARED By:

D.R. Geske APPRovEo ey:

H. Hinkley 3E2[_ $$IEf 1/30/81 SEABROOK To BE UsED

'Fif f)

PAGE e

y3 No.

7 of 9 PROJECT PROCEDURE oNLY oN JoS #

.j' s

4.0 CAVITY EVALUATION - CONTINUED 4.2' Continued l

4.2.2 B.

Document the appropriate-steps of the Defect Removal Process Sheet to indicate: NCR required "NO"; Process i

Sheet required "N0";

Weld Repair P.S. issued "NA".

Initial and date all three hold points.

4.2.3 Repair By Welding Required A.

All other cavities shall be corrected in process in accordance with this procedure by issue of a standardized Weld Repair Process or Base Material Repair Process Sheet, see attachment F, three parts.

B.

Document the appropriate steps of the Defect Removal Process Sheet to indicate:

NCR required "NO"; Proces,s Sheet required "YES".

Initial and date both hold points.

C.

Forward the original Defect Removal Process Sheet with attachments to the Quality Engineer-Process to announce additional process sheets required.

D.

Forward one copy of the Arc Strike Surveillance Report, Weld Repair Order, or Base Material Suryeillance Report, with the cavity dimensions, to the Engineering Department for issue of the appropriate Repair Welding Process Sheet.

5.0 REPAIR BY WELDING 5.1 The documentation procedure used for butt welCing shall also be used for all repairs made by welding. The appropriate process sheet, as shown in attachment F, shall be selected by the Engineering Department to effect fill of the established. cavities.

5.2 Repairs shall be in accordance with an approved qualified Pullman Power Products welding procedure for the type of base material involved i

and recognizing that the cavity may differ in contour and dimensions from a normal butt welded joint.

~

i 1

I f

sF 1.ot A (4-79)

=

_ _ ~. -

_J

~g-~

,e

.n.-

r

=

' ~

Ag Pullman Power Products aS-Ix-14 0.v sion of Pulirran incorporated

/

DoCUYENT No.

2/8 - $INI 1/30/81 PREPARED SY:

0.R.' Geske APPROVED BY:

H. Hinklev 70 BE UsED Cf d' PAGE SEABROOK oNt.Y oN Jc8 #

4 o

No.

8 of 9 PROJECT PROCEDURE 5.0 REPAIR BY WELDING - CONTINUED 5.3 Repairs shall be made by qualified welders.

5.4 For base material repairs 'and for repair in welds made by a welder other than the original welder, the repair welder shall apply his symbol adjacent to the repaired area.

6.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 6.1 Elimination of Base Material Surface Defects 6.1.1 Unacceptable base material surface defects shall be removed by grinding or machining provided that:

f A.

The remaining section thickness is not reduced below 87.5%

of nominal wall. Thickness report is required.

l B.

The depression after indication removal is blended uniformly I

into the surrounding surface. Visual inspection documentation is required.

(See4.2.2A)

C.

The area is examined by the Liquid Penetrant or Magnetic Particle method, as appropriate, to assure the indication has been removed or reduced to an acceptable limit.

Examination report is required.

6.1.2 Areas ground to remove oxide scale or other mechanically caused imperfections for appearance or to facilitate proper Ultrasonic testing need not be examined by the Magnetic Particle or Liquid Penetrant method.

6.1.3 When the elimination of the defect reduces the remaining section thickness less than 87'.5% of nominal but greater than 2/3 actual wall, the product shall be repaired by welding. An NCR per paragraph 2.5 is not required.

(See 5.0) 6.2 Repair.by Welding 6.2.1 The crafts, under control of issued process sheets, may repair by welding material from which defects have been removed, provided the following requirements are met:

A.

The defect shall be removed or the indication reduced to an acceptable size by suitable mechanical or thermal cutting or gouging methods and the cavity prepared for repair.

sF 1.ot A (4-79)

.w.

-e----Tp*wm=wp 4-w y-

=--ww--er-m--w*--

~----

-eay1 --

v--i w.w.in

-.-se+m r eme v-r-v w

--i,--v

+----y--'

kw--g

=,r:

rir.

-w i *

-94v,--

w v

~

JG Pullman Power Products Civ:5,,,n of Pullman loco porated

//

oOCUYENT No.

0.R. Gesf e APPROVED BY:

H. Hinkley N@_ l>!IEI.

1/30/81 PREPARED BY:

SEABR00X To BE UsED JSy p G g~~

PAGE 4.y Q g,j no.

9 of 9 PROJECT PROCEDUPE oNtY oN JoS #

GENEPAL REQUI (MENTS - CONTINUED 6.0 t'l 6.2 Continued When thennal cutting is'perfonned to prepare weld joints 6.2.1 8.

or edges, to remove defective material or for any other purpose, consideration shall be given to preheating the i

material, using preheating schedules as shown in the appropriate Weld Procedure Specification. (See 3.3.1.A).

Ii The welding procedure and welders or welding operators shall C,

be qualified in accordance with Project Procedure II-S and ASME Section IX.

.After repair, the surface shall be blended uniformly into p,

the surrounding surface.

Each repair weld shall be examined by the Magnetic Particle E,.or Liquid Penetrant method.,In addition, when the depth of the repair cavity exceeds the lesser of 3/8" or 107, of the actual section thickness, the repair weld shall be radiographed.

The product shall be heat treated after repair, if required.

F, 6.3 Elimination of Weld Metal Defects 6.3.1 See paragraph 4.2.2 above.

6.3.2 Epamination of Repair Welds The examination of a weld repair shall be repeated as A,

required for the. original weld except that when the defect was origianlly detected by Liquid Penetrant or Magnetic Particle methods and when the repair cavity does not exceed the lesser of 3/8" or 107, of the actual thickness, it need only be examined by the Liquid Penetrant i

or Magnetic Particle method.

t um Su s

sr 1.ot A (4-79)

... -, ~

- ~.

I j

u e

7,

' ATCit.C "O

.C O'

C i

n

=

~

7 R 2 SEABROOK STATION odg. cDde PX 52 R*

T"'

41'03'010-x z s

u -

T y ~' s.

PULLMAN POWER PRODUCTS 5

1 M S Index

~ o Status.

D a

o u

Heat Treatment Actual Wall Thickness u

8 BASE HATERIAI. SUR'.*EtLLANCE REPORT Hydrostatic Test in w.

i sw w

JOB 7035 penair tveie concietea i

3 gd

-o

n. 7 Sys.

Une No.

IsoN Wold No.

Maledal Site Tles.

I s

k N

l is 3Q INDICATION CAVITY 4

Prepared By Dale Prepared By Dale

[

hi t:.

tm m_

Deon LOOKINC NORTH g

I l,'

C 1

,g g

o z

\\

~

i

/

3 C

73 E

LOOKIIIC EAST g

m p,.

y D-2 1

I a) ?

S*

h f

l u2 5

m 0

o m

(

1

/

5 o$

s "5

(

o a

w p_ s a.

m >.

h i

g

[

oj IAOKINC WEST g

.m T

C ji I

r l<

(U 2

/

Es j

/

1 l

i:

=s

.=

i 3a m

a

~

CL w

gg e_9 m

Depa o

LOOKillC SOUTH L

l 82 i

4%.

!?ti

/

e o

cx:

I wm I

DO m

i 9

(

I S

E rj TE: Autr.s swuet to new intettfo1 tm **ws nitTt':r' j

FROM CENTER OF VELO.

n.

a l

l.

1-lA i

I 3

i.

-J

i ATCil.A l

f Y

Ei j-SEABROOK STATION odg. Cod PX-52 Rec. Type 41 03 010-i 5 E %t PULLMAN POWER PRODUCTS 3

I M S Index o

>< :- s St,t E

7 b ARC STRIKE SURVEtt.tR:CE RF.Po h Hest Treatnent

$ 8 HydrostatlC Test a

w.

JOB 7035 ge., ate Cycle Actual Wall Thickness m

g g @.

Sys.

Une No.

IsoJOwg.

' We'd No.

Material Si e Thks.

t jg s

%I N

INDICATION CAVITY r

Prepared By Date Prepared By Date s

tooKINC NORTH tengs YAct oe92 i

1 yes),

U) k l

"o a"' t.u 3

3 j

'O

=

i O

'toottNc EA$t t,

e.

t w-x G.

i l

n

'I 5

o8 k

/

)e eb O

$z

(

i m,

O8 11 w

Dc E

D l

LooKINC WEST g

won 0%

i CE

'I l

j

)

to 2

[5 o l

j

= 8 I

t

)

w 3p g

S D. 6 5

x8 tooKINc Sount t,

won o.

J 82 l

r d 'kg

./

f

)

1 Q

Afu ww l

j DO y

L

/*

m NOTE: ASSICN WMBERS To EACH INDICAf to:t MD SHoV DISTMCC 5

nox Comt or vuo.

i a

W

~b g

I l r.

i i

1 i

- - ~

1

See

/'

~

W 2H heAtMbq

.o N

_ V4Ec _

U EE c_

~P L Gsva~. Qv. bra *S 9,6skat.P.g.?qkeudHAudchr

_. D P.c and %

~..: _ _.Ihg.g & A be

( A K _ '... A % L t _ _ _. L 3 % g j FG A Eye e

~.

-m

..-.mi..n

..-...s..

B.httis o%A+ ' Al%'4 p.v.ts.+...

... g 4

g,ewn..

4 N_.2... p

___-.. _ p s p.q.e_.r a

g

A^Mmo OM #41

~

W h..

. @ ^ T ? " ' " O. :

(N hCh *.

%vilw h aa'qqik L

~ ~ ~ '

_ R..hcAm_ cA bpkg_b_ _

~~ M.hW A ~ _ MeLbdtb 1

. _. _ 'P e t

..R_. _ h a..d _4 5h r_o. &

. 7 hmes

.N t_

.. %.. A % o ^ e. d h s e n )

f

.& iPer B%r_

R.. _ g R e r W n.o r

.18.4r!".@c M.Kbs?,

):

_3 D.o W.

'L..

.._... ? CoJ\\o % 't. 2._ "_ _

3 Aur Aa m b,w hkki hw g

1 h eo

$ 3 r.___ _ _. _ _.. _. _.. K. 3 4 _ k h 6 _. _..

F % hnrsa bN A_%@al& M ser.._.._

T

.Adb N.a M1.._._..

.1_ q 4%fh

%c ?rm.ter_kg%&

_Aky Q'..%A %.- Q Q v

~

p_ g.

h. gb w k, 2l G Adyc (24.

P.

l

.. _.... _ -__. A w k R>l W J' I

...$. sa%hl WLNv

. LFaz

?qbe L v' g

. _I) A h % p % E h L,

~ g Ik k

. Mk.

-. -..... -. -.. T @rx+

- - -._. TW C tr _

t

%%kv QC % v T, hhn Ah

~'

3 C..

(A.)o.cq

~

o# %

s

- l i

_.e._.

..._..__e.__

..__._e

= e6 h m

+. e enmum me us.

w emme h

e.--

e e

eO N euh* mee e-.us.i e

e e--.me qu me e

e e-.

e e

.m.

e e

em 4

-aw.

..-e-.-n-

-a.

wee-

---...m.

w.

- h.

4 e ehm-a we ee me ei.ee eh h..

e me e

. 4 eme-e muuDmm.

e m.

e ese W <

b e

a e

/p d

w N

e=W

...gM en.

e 6

I

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

.w-r----mt--M-

+

e-ww-y

=rew-+-

- - ~ '

e

'7-*--

ww m-'--wis"-m-r-+-N*=*-essM urn"'ee-eew w-m.-

-'a==s-wmm.uv-.

semwr

-w-'r-v~-'-en-

s,_

C h

4-Jc 4

L,.Jgr.-

4m-'W4-tL

.m.L_

s

_w_-_

+

4 u.,

ee--.

J-5-.,.i.att e -d A.4

.'n-id-wJ.e-4.r--e.-

ai-..n-a

.J Me e.#-

e beu.ia a9.w W M'm.

..g.w--4.-

.ew-._+

- %oe

--h.a,

.-w i

j f

e 9

L k

l l

l 9.

1 L

b1I ID D hO b.)

bk i

f V N.A.

. (.....

1 E t Y M O...).

d b% dixf bMI l

I 1

l 1

1 t

r l

4_

9 l

t y

. ?

t 6

=

1 1

t t

1,

+

h*

.. e

~..., ; _..-.

I 1

p a

r 1

1 d!

J i

w ome e e

. eoe.,

..g

..ee..

.ee.*

so..e.-

i 4

4 g

y...

m_

f t

....m

.. _.- w.

__._.,....u.

i i

i t

d*

I

..._.,.,. h t

+

l

,.* 6

. 4 3_

f 4

f k

i T

=.... -

.-.e-.

a

. m ape.

k*

I

--. +..

....... ~.

...m I

I e

t e

-.e W

I e/

e

'"*48**'**h

-Neb.

"A ew=-.

7

..-i?.-e.

wye-. q T ym - 9W4Mt?*T*T'Mpf'W*r-'F-W.-SF"p""D.y'*3-Ty-fy"P'"'X**EM*B'2 RPPM FP N M9'- N.."-NrW*

-"M'D"s'e"r3f"""***P.#WP'9"*-N

,m.,:

as t 'C on.

_,...,.o

=

~

. J

=

DIMETRIC WELDER STATUS SHEET

~

..:o.

s.

s....,

v.

p.

TOTAL TOTAL REJECT J'

y.

i

__ T.D.

WELDERS NAME WELDS REJECTS RATE

'COPl4ENTS 3

IB BOLSTER

' lK '

$3.3 3 BP JONES 'I.

~

19

~7 M96 C2 FULLER li 9

.. t.l-'} 8/d

" ~

s c2 B'nSouE 2..

3

.noa %.

4, --

' R9,1 me annnwnTer e - '..

~l

' = ~

nn nFronn

~

'W $b '

-. -l '

- 10 2

~36075 we unnnrr.

we a m nrne

' ;Q 12 545%i ET ASHTON

_Il

'l 7 076 FR HEDLEY a-~~

~~10

Y t/d 70

~

K4 KEY.'!ONT l4

9

~ 5 7. l %

59 7

2$.E#7b LE **

_MARTEL I

LP cAMPB E T.T.

ll 4

..,_2f, q %

o MD H AYN'T'nN 5-l' I

' SO 7U pp cannnr.

I'14 '

'.' '/o 3/ ~874 28-Ih 357% i np norsw q

MT r.nnu

'4-

- 3 75#k

.Z PORTWOOD

'h M"

-e l %.S.

" ~

ZA SU$LIVAN h

/

I I.4 $d 55 we b% n.

.wo 7a 1

t o

C.L M2y mne n I

O 0 9d RY Csue b -

\\

I

Fon%

t.

-. e ~."..-

2.

-..=:

...;...<s-

.t - -

.9 g

4 8

g l

.l.

1 M

'~

-. ~, -

e,

.w.

mg 4.

m._.

e

> 4mh a,M Au, eg%y4 WJw c vnec] m (+maas s.

Y-M n w.:c.._ J g

a meg y r.

w.- s wg p

p,(,

^*-

Y^ * &

" - " % - J ~ p n a l.o a7,,aw t

(

1 4

.*N*

.b-4 e

4 9

9 d

e k

9

.g

,.-a,

.,-p.-

v.

^

-..__.___.,__.._.-[

J SEABROOK STATION INTERIM PROCEDURE CRANGE FGCP-1 IV.A.6 UE&C Procedure FGCP-3 Revs No.

7 IPC No.

4 1.

Reason For Change:

1 To-be consistent with UE&C QCP-13, Revision 11 entitlel

_ _ Storage Level Requirements" RECEIVED U. E. & C. INC.

~

DEC.? 2198l SEABROOK STATION i

2.

Affected Pararraoh(s)/ Existing Recuirementj Reference IPC 1, Paragraph 5.1.2 a) c.

5.1.2 a) Fire retardant structure or room will be provided with the following environmental conditions maintained:

_ _ a) Relative humiditg 50%

b) Te'mperature - 65 F i 10,F c) - Filtered air supply using filters with a 75% efficiency rating.

d). Housekeeping to minimize dust and other contaminents.

r 3.

Revise (2)'As Follows:

l 5.1.2 a) Fire retardant structure or room will be provided with the following environmental conditions maintained:

a) Relative humidity 50%

b) Temperature - 65"F i 10 F i

c) ~ Filtered air supply using filters with a 75% dust arrestance efficiency rating.

d) Housekeeping to minimize dust and other contaminents.

12/18/81 J.J.,Moran Date:

Originator:

NO~N Resident Con truction Mgr.: b Date:

II!/ 84 /n NO Date// bbl Field Supt. 0A N O d b ym + /

xk : b v._u h b Date /=/A*/h/

l f

Authorized Nuclear Inspector *

(J f]

Concurrence for ASME Section III Proceddies i
l
Esn1 w d % f e.4u, E c x - 4 ca s n3 o b m b c?ch (83 a lt x L k k i U 4 - v.) % d
?M q cq s % w :,._
t8i y
a3 o> u - s...
w.
cf %,.(dg 18 C Ut M o-en blb pap iT7 t
(87 walk qua.0
/b.c!%
rr/73 55l89/
~
Tv d (4^4-do N"
uM 1
7 37, 7, yo*/,- Est:
3c, s.1--
sstat J
%'q4 s l. - sst's
.fo e
~&
1 5 s t 82.
9 IG a
g11.r TTl73 { 1ote
% SS / 85 J 3
F7 f'8 3.to 5s IK
_i 8
55177 t,.
gas WIS7 W 5'I 7 8 '
g,
-(
f15 U T~ ?.1*/
V0 ICM1 9763,013-10SS2, (PH 50S1, g
-)
PH 5683 l
c o,,, u2H 568 2 Public Service Co.of b.ew Hampshire
.................o,d.,g.,1,Q1,5,2,,2,,,
3 C/0 United Engineers f. Constructors Inc.
Route No. 1 - Site Access Road Seabrook, NH 03874 sNgged.........................,,,,,,,,
.J T w. ai w e n. -
t._
Cust. Spec..IV 502 Dtd.10/17/77 ASM.E...S..F. A... 5. 4.S..ec.. 11...P Tsado N wne Arcaloy 316 AC DC Fa.
., r,ad.na,e 333 3/32" Type..... E 310 14 fI as sia.
1,350 lbs.
tm Mvmber:
05-1-A912M Test No. 2642 u : w.nn.,:
17616C Mix 1 Concentricity 4%
cuto" 3
Type Steel A-285 8daa9*" "
Full Split.
Volts Amps cmeanian 19.96 13.21 Tes,tN,o.
, sew smosa 59 Tensiles 1
6 2S 80 02
+
01 As-F ' ' " #-
T*""*"".
Test Welded 2 43 Results:
N
N
- has*8ea Yield
/
Tensile 90,600 3AS f f f4 _
copper
.10
.04 36.0%
3m Elongation
.024 Red.of Area
./
ph
,h,u.
.017
ausphu, m
.05 pillets:
OK Vertical Overhead l
U f5E"k N
CoheR AN Penne 6% Schaeffler 8
5.4% Magne Gage
...t%.sLg
*
20,e.yu sw N-1224 r Ou any sysses cour.casion us:
198_1 QA/QC SITE b au o.ic_ September 8.
Nitrogen 098 VIEWED he undamenas causws thes the consens W Penna.
3 sbie n si York his eeport ase convece and accurate and inat ani
%, g 3
gY g4'**"*"*"'*""*"*""***'"***"'*
UE & C J27-/79
(lie )
d"* 'naimias smincanon and ASME Boita and subac ibed and swoen to befose ene pressure vmes cgI 3 g :
un 21st d.y ot February n 7"
.on m oin section scA seco r AI.LOY RODS DIVISION sEAi...
I
/
av..............'..
Mr canassica== pie. 11/22/82 D. G. Flohr
,, q f avr.no
l A
1 p.o. w es2.
N T 31 $ qzy Ct' AL!n* m L C1!ECKI.!ST DELTA FERRITF CONTENT TEST (PRODUCTICN OF VELD PADS)
/
ROD TYPE d '3/$ ~/6 ROD SIZE 8/5P%
TEST NO.
DATE
.7 86 HEAT NO. //d /4C.
1.0T NO. CS-/-A-9/2M MANUFACTURER
/e wi[#ad
[o4#
279~0*$
V0GT/ AWnP METER 2D INSPECTORS INITIALS _
8OY db w M VJ y 1.
Base Plate Material
/
2.
Plate Marking 3.
Amp Range OO
((
Voltage Range 2/
4.
Copper Bar Spacing N6
[
5.
Preheat temp 50*F min.
78 8
// [
/
6.
Interpass Temp 350*F max.
6#
7.
Weld buildup in Reverse 6M-
[
Direction each bead layer.
/
8.
No Stops or Starts in Test OY Area.
/
9.
Quenching with Water and
~
ON Air correct
10. Pad Surface Finish Complete gg
/
/
YAECReviewd UEM: Review P.P.P. Q.A. Review In('b!f.o.N.
Int. f Inc. ?cN n i,. e-j Date 3 - 2 I-TO Date ^l:d <:
Date l
h N
ad was mduc.1<d uG
, Ae % pedes pm Jen 4c-n9
,[tq (Ep PAGE 30_ QfN.
-e 1
I I
MMTE 0 IC0Sh EE R Q. 3 4...r,~[d Evms
$'$$ I
-Ukhb5j, g,gf,1f CUALITY CCNTROL CHECALIST
"" N iM&v DELTA TERRITT. CONTENT TEST fgrg" (TEST RESULTS)
I3.2 _
/
[-8/6-//2 ROD SIZE RCD NO.
LOT NO. 03 ~hA -9]d M TEST NO.
EEAT NO./74/h A _
~
3/20!& _
UAIE MANUFACTURE [ ) tM.-[ h O pp,
,/
09 7 ~8975' FEREliCSCOPE LD
/
TEST PAD NO. _
Ferritescope Readings in 1 d,[ %
1.
2.__
6.S Z 3._
6.8 2
6. 0 1
d. 4 4._
1 6.51 s._
.8, k
6. _
4,88 2 Avg.
Territescope Reading in FN
4. 9 n
1.
2.
f4 FN 3.
IY W
4.
$O W
5.1 I
rN.
s.
50 n
l 4,9 n
s.
l 6/
FN Avg.
t UE&C Review t
YAEC Revicy_
f P.P.P. Q. A. Reviev w is-In t.,'
'e[
I Int._
Int. _/
Date '/l.// 4 Date__
Date 3-J/ fD
' - - ~ _ _. _ _
a~
~
- ~. -.
~
1330 FR[
/ork)[f g[
Interview Attendance List
.RC Exit
'nspection Nude-50-443/SI-17._ 50-444/81_[Q ~
.O Inspection TypekJkb blb.-UA!MAbddlEA-th5lT -S.k6)ldkXM
~
NA.E (Print)
TITLE ORGANIZATION a].T~ nyonwror)
OA3Pseinusr CAEC F6A6 Ju)..DKl.Efod FGA MGd "h!92C 2.? n-kee as' h-o M=c,
>erc(s,,,,ncom<
/
0-
- /AN/SW Fis-GA_
UE+C lC 6N Al l}
he
$C A A ff/N d b/,/
e
J K cAav..
!=O M
&c 37d Nhaf Sarde py4///get.
a.-
TF.-
,- / ' ; i.
.E,.
~
C fd 6 365 fftb^
dlidC l
S.2evno?de Ltre.b urKRc.
6
[
-. =
f i
l i
N..' '
1 l
?: '
i l
l
- i w
. p".
~~~
BEU E~ SH EET~~
~
ius ~ - s 4.2.7-
~ ~
FORM - 001 PAGE 1
OF 1 SEABROOK STATION NO*
032 REQUEST FOR FOLLOW-UP ACTION NRC INSPECTIONS
. c. 9/.,3..
W..
s-DATE:
6/22/81 TO:
J. F. Veught '...y.
I,e 7,.:.,,.T
....;~...
.s y..,,
inspection item'
Description:
Clarify Cross-Over, Restraint Requirements UNIT:
1 '
(Dwg. F101482) 7
...."..a.~.
.~
. ~....
Reff RFI 73/1442 Fiel'd' Instruction F1-92 Rev. 1 "AsIresult'of'NRCInspection81-08byInspectorsReynoldsandSanders,"the
"'~~~
following preliminary questions need response.
4....
c 1.
Justification for taot stress relieving field welds (material being susceptible to
~ -,,
laminar tearing,~underbead' cracking, etc.).
2.
The elim4' nation of NDE after weld buttering in field.
- - - Corrective Action Required: As indicated above.
UE&C's response should include the shop fabrication requirements (Cives).
s f
b Date Required: 6/29/81 Approved By:
J. W. Singleton l
6 Requested By:
l YAEC FCAE M i
l NOTE: Contractor is requested to respond by memo referring ident. number of this report.
i.
t.:.._...
=
E,,P EM-!EET- ~
~~
~~
ius n - e 4.2.7
~
a v v: f,r,- n,*,, p p FORM - 001
,6 3
, b, G b*
PAGE 1 OF 2
SEABROOK STATION MAR 231981 no' REQUEST FOR FOLLOW-UP ACTION
,n,
'MISSOEl[l."fj,yp i NRC INSPECTIONS
.rg
-v J.F. Vought DATE:
TO.
Inspe'cti6n item
Description:
Cross-Over Leg Restraint UNIT: #1 u_.
Upon inspection.of the restraints as on UE&C dwg. F-10182, ECA 01/1775 and ECA 01/189_5_and Cives documentation of the fabrication of these restraints (Site Documentation Package) the conditions were identified:
..y_..__
(1) UE&C'dwg. F-101482 Section 101482C shows a horizontal frame at E1.(-)
there are two stiffner plates installed.
(2) a.
ECA-01/1775A sht. 2 shows a typical corner detail. Is this applicable to every corner?
(Cord. oW M.A
/-
r Corrective Action Required:
Address the above noted conditions and provide corrective action as necessary.
i i
/
Date Required: 3/30/$f Approved M
,g AECdi. i~_.
Hequested By: h.(~, Mdh YAEC FQAE NOTE: Contractor is requested to respond by memo referring ident. number of this report.
N l
BLUE SHEET - SEABROOK STATION PAGE 2 REQUEST FOR FOLLOW-UP ACTION NRC INSPECTIONS A
(2) b.
Is the orientation as shown on sht. 6 of this ECA mandatory?
(3)
Does Cives weld procedures require a backing, trip for their single-vee groove welds?
)
UE&C Spec. 12-5 para. 3.3.1.7.b. requires single-vee groove
.i i weld corner joints to be b%ttered and that the battered weld
-j be visual and magnetic particle examined. There are no MT
-i inspection reports in the~ Site Documentation Package that would substantiate that this is done.
(5)
The MT inspection reports show the type of joint that was MT exam $ned.
The only type of joints MT examined, according to the records in the Site Documentation Package, are single i
double bevel groove welds. There are no MT inspection reports for single or double-vee groove welds.
(6)
There is one visual inspection report for each fabricated piece t
and these pieces may include multiple welds. B it acceptable,
when welding to the requirements of AWS, to not identify the visual inspection of each individual weld?
{
(7)
UE&C dwg. F-101482 and applicable ECA's do not reflect the as-
,j built condition of the pieces-fabricated by Cives.
(8)
Some of the welds under the copes on the stiffner plates shown i.
on UE&C dwg. F-101482 Section 101482A appear to be incomplete.
4 i
I 1
ym.,.-,,.m.
,,,~--,,__m_
,--.g.
e.-w
.._,___.,'.**^--9_ _.....
A sea g
l e
l April 2, 1981 BLUE SHEET No. 22 Revised Power Engineering Response:
We have the comments on Blue Sheet No. 22:
1.
This is in accordance with the sendor detail and ECA 01/17753.
l 2.
a.
ECA 01/1775A is intended to indicate typical in any direction.
- Vendor-drawings correctly show various details.
i
- ~
2.
b.No.
^ Actual orientation is shown on vendor detailed drawings.
1
3. ~ Yes.
A' backing strip is required.
~
The~present' documents cont. sin complete reports and include buttering, root, and final weld pass. These are not identified separately and the vendor ~is in the process of reviewing these docu.nents to identify them separately.
~
5.
Single vee and doubir. vee groove welds will be documented when these welds' occuf.~~ All full penetration joints were MT examined and documented.,_
6.
Docurentation is done for each component and is in accordance with the approved procedure VIS-P-78, FP 12877-01.
7.
'Ihe ECA is revised to 01/1775B.
r 8.
The vendor details show complete detail for all joints. These were reviewed by UE&C Engineering in Philadelphia.
i
(
Ks
{
R. N. Kuehn RNK:cao i
cc: JA Grusetskie TP Vassallo AJ Hulshizer i
MA Edgar i
RG Blair PL Francis JR h pe g
MP Hanson RN Kuchn H Shah i
i I
- -. ~
UE&C QA Response g - m Item 4 Vendor Surveillance Supervising Engineer was contacted and requested that the UE&C Resident Vendor Surveillance Repre-sentative review the records at Cives to assure that mag-netic particle inspection of the buttering was performed as required. The Vendor Surveillance Representative will review the documentation prior to submittal to the Site.
Item 8.
UE6C QA is in the process of inspecting the welds under the copes on the stiffner plate. Welds have been found that are not complete. This inspection will be complete by 4/8/81 and the incomplete welds documented on an NCR.
t D. C. Lambert i
i Ii
+
t i&
t 6
9 wee w a =*
-w.
w m.u.a 9 L y g g 9 g gg
-- ---,,,3_,;,_7
-- I 7
FORM - 001 APR 2 0 1981 PAGE 1
F 1
SEABROOK STATION W 7 TTM-I NO*
022A
((jj..n,-"E S
r,Mut. REQUEST FOR FOLLOW-UP ACTION j$,J NRC INSPECTIONS t-23 J.F.YOUGIE TO:
J. F. Vought DATE:
4/17/81 inspection item
Description:
Cross-Over Leg Restraint UNIT:
1 The response to two of the eight items identified on BS 022 was incomplete and/or incorrect. Item #1 and #7 stated ECA 01/1775B was revised to indicate there were 2 stiffner plates in the place of the flange.
In reviewing the ECA it was still not apparent that was the intent of pg. 6 of6 of the ECA.
This was discussed with Mr. Mehta and !1r. Grusetskie of UE&C and they agreed to revise the ECA. ' Item #4 is incomplete.
The present MT reports in the Site Data Package for Spec. 12-5. S.O.6687. do identify when the MT is for the root weld and when for the final weld but no where do the MT reports indicate there was any MT on the butterine of the reouired icints.
Additionally the cives shon drawines do noe indfrnee all_ only some of the ningle-ve, grnnve bure borIbYve kcMh0e8:
gr w w s for corner joints requh buttering.
1.
Assure that ECA 01/1775 is revised as agreed upon by Mr. Mehta and Mr. Grusetskie Respond how programmatically the vendor is going to determind which joints were v
actually buttered.
2b. How programmatically they are going to identify the buttered joints that were Mr'ed.
2c. UE&C shall identify,if any,unsat./ deficient items via the appropriate document.
2d. State when will the documentation be revised / corrected, i
i l
Date Required: 4/24/81 Approved By:
J. W. Singleton Requested By: h,( f h
YAEC FOAE NOTE: Contractor is requested to respond by memo referring ident. number of this report.
.y April 29, 1981 BLUE SHEET No. 22A Power Engineering Response:
1.
ECA 01/1775 has been revised'to a C revision.
l 2.
The vendor is going to determine which joints are actually buttered i
based on the information in the structural steel detail drawings. The structural steel detail drawings are prepared by the vendor, Cives. All joints that require buttering are indicated on these drawings. The Cives detailed drawings are reviewed and accepted by UE&C Power Engineering.
2b.
All buttered joints are required to be magnetic particle inspected this specification. The vendor will perform MT of all these joints in accordance with this specification.
9 2c.
UE&C vendor surveillance is and will identify deficiencies as and when they occur.
4 2d.
The UE&C vendor surveillan'ce representative reviewed and accepted the revised and corrected vendor documentation for the discrepancies reported in this Blue Sheet on April 23, 1981. These were transmitted to the Seabrook site on April 24, 1981 by the vendor.
_nnd
/
IA7asa%~
~
Martin P. Ha'nson "
MPH:cao ec: MP Hanson H Shah MA Edgar l
JA Crusetskie l
TP Vassallo AJ Hulshizer RC Lesnefsky DC Lambert i
RG Blair I
I n a e-.
,.-.-...-_.,___.._..,-.w.
. -_ '~,~-...
~
k Q
& EACCdbK
.8.
S O
-s tW. g 7
/ N N ft l//t=?A )
L i
,g
,g
~.
'PerteM M GL ceMm N/FM dMDd ON M N 8/=/3 M g. + Z PP 4-1 Aer aa ta. ~.-
sur w<m cumuone-aus m c-5J&iN, ae
'PA' (D
Y W c.
toeb.
h m n 4.i m oucTLeV P:-Am q CQ c.
4 e 6 d i e v5 ik saar n~.ni~ c do P4 e
o r w t.
i
$UWL-Seit 882. W h i A t C A @ A #
TitAtMIN & =
Gl W 88 MN h7-f
/A.i.Dec r/Crw A. Tea AJ f.y g>
g.cvt eu aie nao TA W D"JK ~
H%
iM Ch*
Se ustTIEkrea.<J Q Uesrta M (D
h F%c % FSMC CAyb /7 ecpmus debar DAfGS UE46 97U -o" '% ~ 4) s
---e
,,---,--,+,-,,e.e--,m-en,.
,,,-,,-,ee-
--,e--
- - - - - - -, -., - ~ - - - - - - - ~
h M.M M
W hh 4.he NhM 9
O N
% A q-c
/
h v A43 e
~
=
=-
J ANEU[P-L4[LJ6~d-.C_
hi h i Gu4ft% 9 I
I 1
i l
i-
ow.
.-m e
M
'9'O 4-e e66 ghp g.
,,gg,
,p p
b U
Y09t}
lb /d.n t o ',-to R
f t
{%Ch(M A~
W
%k g
4U 05?l 'l ' t-I
m
^%.
.t I
l
!,i 1
1 4
1 1
i i
o e
n e
I 9
u
l
. ~.
PROCEDURE REVIEW AND PRE-TRAINING RECORD i
PROC. NO.
REV. NO.
PRPR NO.
PROCEDURE CORRECTIVE ACTION XVI-2 04 001 TITLE INITIAL PREPARER K.' Swisher EXT.
3:I 5/27/82 DRAFT
~
ENGINEERING C. Scan NDE M DISTRIBUTED FOR FIELDQk k DOIsk T
NG Vonedantrv/ Sexton R.
bu eM, SYSTEMS M K.
QC bb Swisher II\\
i\\'
V i
F f
hh
\\
I
~~

W" INSTRUC 0 a{'
route the procedure 179 y Supe tsor of each de; U
sp t
Cements y
t r.
el in his de tme t as s
1 ocumented by attac i eets or by up the draft.
p Sup isor shalJ approva 1 comments and return them, with this
,totheQrgearer.
[
e
/
\\
\\3 U
iO NTS ACTIONS RESPOND BY 6/1/82 C
COMMENTS OR COMMENT NEWd-'
f R CO'
(
j CONCUR
.V h
PLEASE RETURN. PRIOR TO ISSUE I
PERSONNEL WITH INPUT
\\N d)
SUPERVISOR ITLE DATE W
EVALUATION C0 VALUATED SUBSEQUENT DRAFT REQUIRED OF COMMENTS g DISCU WITH SIGNATORIES
_ MEETING REQUIRED RETURNED PRPR EXCEPTIONS ro,/4/8 '2-PREPARER DATE t
l TYPED AND PROOFREAD REVIEWED BY PREPARER p
DOCUMENT CONTROL SPECIALIST: (
m ure DATE [o-A/-[$L FINAL DR' APT REVIEWED, FINAL COMMENTS INCORPORATED, AND APPROVED BY:
APPROVAL dA dv/n. e c-Ma9f ~. 01hi PSI!PV.-SYSTEMS e n 4 z.
'DATE CHIEF FIEfD ENGINEi!R DATE OA FANAGER DATF
_o i
79 "
. CHIEF FIELD ENG.
c-d.'
VF9 QA MANAGER (
PRE-TRAINING
xREQUIREMENTS PERSONNEL OR GROUPS TO BE PRE-TRAINED
,, -,c r. o L M. s C od h _ ECM '
)
~ PRE-TRAINING COMPLETED BY TRAINING OFFICER:
DATE
[
QA SYSTEMS ALL PRPR'S ACCOUNTED FOR ALL PRE-TRAINING RECORDS ATTACHED
~
CLOSEOUT RECORDS:
DOC. CONTROL SPEC.
DATE QA SUPV. AC130WLEDGEMENT DATE l...- _ _.. _.__,.. _ _ _ _,.,, _ _.
~~
~
~
~
~ ~~ ~
CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR SIGNIFICANT CONDITIONS ADVERSE TO QUALITY i
a 1.0 SCOPE
'1 This procedure provides measuresto assure that conditions adverse to quality which f
s have been identified as being significant per Paragraph 2.0 are investigated.
corrected, documented and verified.
1.2 Corrective measures established herein are in addition to corrective measures accomplished through the NCR, SWO, and audit systems.
i 2.0 POLICY 2.1 This procedure describes the use of the Corrective Action Report (CAR) (see Appendix A).
CARS are not required when corrective action is adequately accomplished through i
other corrective action systems such as NCRs SW0s, and AARs, but may be generated under any of the following conditions.
i 2.1.1 When corrective action through another system (see Para. 2.1) is not timely or adequate.
2.1.2 When programatic conditions adverse to quality are identified through trend analysis or audit.
2.1.3 When a higher level of priority is required for resolution of conditions adverse to. quality which have been identified as significant.
2 CARS require response within five (5) working days by the organization responsible j
for implementing corrective action. Response shall include immediate corrective s
action to be teken and completed within five (5) working days. Immediate corrective action may include a schedule for completion of proposed corrective action when such corrective action exceeds a fire workday period for projected implementation, and is authorized by the QA Manager or designee. Any CAR responsa not received by the due data shall be referred directly to the QA Manager and Resident Construction Manager for action.
q h
()
h 3.0 INITIATING THE CAR 3.1 CARS shall be initiated by the QA Supervisor, or his designee, at the direction
l of the QA Manager. Sections 1 through 3 shall be comp a s indicated below.
Section 1 - Enter the governing requirement (s) (spec., manual, code, etc.)
'v Section 2 - Identify the basis of the CAR (trend analysis, NCR, audit finding, etc.)
Section 3 - Enter the description of the condition (s) adverse to quality (CATQ).
t h
Itemize each specific area for which corrective action is to be addressed.
I The description cif conditions adverse to quality shall be signed by the QA Supervisor ant the QA Manager.
\\JJM b
The QA~ Supervisor or 3.2
_ designee will assign the next sequential CAR number and enter the date the CAR was
.s typed in the heading of the CAR form. At this time, the date the corrective action i
response is dus will also be entered in Section 4.
The response due date shall not be longer than five (5) working days from the date indicated in the heading unless authorized by the QA Manager or designee as documented by signature adjacent to an extended response date.
j 1
l
~-
Q l-]O 3.'3 The QA Supervisor o designee hall then enter the CAR on a CAR log and handcarry the CAR and obtain sw = wres as required in Section 3.
4.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CONDITIONS ADVERSE TO QUALITY (CATQ)
'.1 The department head or designee responsible for assuring the completion of corrective action shall review the CAR and acknowledge the CATQ by signing Section 3.
Editorial corrections to specified'CATQ (for purpose of clarity) may be'made after consultation with the-QN Manager.
-i -5.0 - DISTRIBUTION
~~
5'.i. ihe QA Supervisor or designee will distribute copies of the CAR to *the following
~
personnel-as a minimum.
5.1.1 Resident Construction Manager
_.._ __..--3.1. 2 -- QA Manager-5.1.3 QA Supervisor - Systems 5.1.4 Responsible Department Head 5.1.5 Director of QA (through Monthly Advisory Report)
~ ~ '. 6. 0 CORRECTIVE ACTION &~ ACTION TO PREVENT RECURRENCE 6.1 The dapartment head shall identify the individual (assignee) who shall respond to the CAR by the date indicated in Section 4 (Response Due By).
._.A 2 The response sha11 be recorded on individual CAR Response forms (Appendices B & C) which are to be attached to the CAR. Separate response forms shall be used to address each Item identified in Section 3 as follows.
6.2.1 Action taken to correct the CATQ.
6.2.2 Date when action taken to correct the CATQ will be completed, or schedule for completion of corrective action (see Para. 2.2).
When the " schedule option" is exercised, progress on corrective action implementation shall be reported per Para. 8.3 through 8.5.
6.2.3 Action taken to prevent recurrence of the CATQ.
6.2.4 Data when action taken to prevent recurrence of the CATQ will be completed, or scheduled (see Para. 6.2.2) for completion.
. 7.0 EVALUATION OF RESPONSES 7.1 Evaluation of CAR Responses will be completed by = d d e =ented on each CAR Response form (Appendices B & C) by the CA Supervisor is design
[/[7
i 7.2 The " Response Received By" will be signed and dated as received.
7.3 Each response will be reviewed for acceptance. (A) 07 hp i
m
' 7.3.1 Unsatisfactory responses willbe so indicated by checking the tpproprieta box. The " Comments" portion of the original response sheet will be marked with the date the response was returned tu the Assignee and the comments appropriate to the unsatisfactory response. The original response will be retained and a copy forwarded to the Assignee for preparation of a satisf.actory responS6.
i.3.2 Satisfactory responses will be so indicated by checking the appropriate box.
Signature of the QA Manager or QA Supervisor also indicates acceptance of a
" schedule" for corrective action, if applicable.
8.0 FOLLOW-UP 8.1 Satisfactory CAR responses will be returned to the Assignee responsible for effecting remedial and/or preventative corrective action.
8.2 The Assignee shall follow up on each response to assure completion of corrective action within the committed time frame (normally within five (5) days, unless a schedule for completion or extension has been approved.
(see Para. 2.2).
8.3 CAR Responses which include an approved schedule for completion shall be followed up and documented by the Assignee weekly on a Corrective Action Progress Report (Appendix D).
The report shall reference the CAR number and CAR Item number and shall include the following as a =4n4=nm.
8.3.1 Date the report was submittted.
8.3.2 Name of Assignee (see Para. 6.1) 8.3.3 Name of the individual (s) with responsibility for acting on the CAR Item. '
8.3.4 The action taken during the reporting period.
8.3.5 The present status of the CAR Item.
8.4 The Assignee shall submit a copy of the Corrective Action Progress Report to the QA Supervisor or his designee and retain the original. The original report may be used for subsequent reporting until ffiled.
8.5 When corrective action has been completed, all original progress reports will be forwarded to the QA Supervisor or his designee.
9.0 VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN 9.1 Verification of implementation of corrective and preventacive action shall be made within five (5) working days of the dates indicated on the CAR Response.
gA\\f[3 9.2 Verification shall be accomplished and recorded by the QA Supervisor orJhi designee on each CAR Response. Responses for which weekly progress reports (Appen3IR u) are submitted shall be documented under " Weekly Progress Report Dates".
)
9.3 When corrective and preventative action has been verified the CAR response sheets can be closed out by dating and signature by the QA Supervisor or his designee.
4 CARS will be closed out only after all individual' CAR responses have been closed out.
(~9. 5 Any CAR Responses not closed out by the committment date shall be referred directly to the QA Manager and Resident Construction Manager for action.
'.0. 0 RECORDS 10.1 The QA Supervisor or hi designee shall maintain a CAR Log. The log shall identify the CAR by number, date
, basis (see Para. 3.1, Section 2), and date closed.
.2 Closed out CARS and appurtenent reports shall be maintained in accordance with Procedure XVII-3.
10.3 All CAR records shall be made available to the ANI upon request.
i l
e 9
T
/
\\
\\
6 I
x l.
\\v l.
_ _, _ _./lyp.v J.< r,._. _
DATE-*
CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT
. CAR NO.
~
CUSTOMER: UE&C PROJECT:
SEABROCK STATION PAGE 1 of 1.
GOVERNING REQUIREMENT:
' BASIS OF CAR:
3.
CONDITIONS ADVERSE TO QUALITY (itemize):
l t
s g
i gs T
i s
l l
t I
l PREPARED BY APPROVED BY ACKNOWLEDGED BY
^
~
RESPONSE DUE BY:
EXTENSION APPROVED BY:
L '}4.
(
ALL CAR RESPONSES i
l COMPLETED AND VERIFIED l t y
r QA SUPERVISOR
.DATE QA MANAGER DATE t
i l
_ m.,_...
)';Cb dit C AR NO.
CAR RESPONSE (REMEDIAL ACTION)
PAGE of
'REPARED BY:
ACTION TAKEN TO CORRE'CT' CONDITIONS ADVERSE TO QUAL 1TY (CATQ):
(CONTINUED ON ATTACHED SHEET:
DATE WHEN CORRECTIVE ACTION WILL BE COMPLETED:
~ SCHEDULE ATTACHED: YES/NO RESPONSE RECEIVED BYi'
'DATE:
SAT UNSAT COMMENTS:
t ACTION TAKEN TO~ CORRECT CATQ'i 4
4 l
(CONTINUED ON ATTACHED SHEET)
DATE WHEN CORRECTIVE ACTION WILL BE COMPLETED SCHEDULE ATTACHED: YES/NO RESPONSE RECEIVED BY:
DATE:
SAT UNSAT WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT DATES FOLLOW-UP CORRECTIVE ACTION COMPLETED:
VERIFICATION CORRECTIVE ACTION VERIFIED i
_ /-
9
r i y y.i a v.
NO.
CAR RESPONSE ITEM NO.
(PREVENTATIVE ACTION)
PAGE of
' 'REPARED BY:
,_ ACTION _ TAKEN TO CORRECT CONDITIONS ADVERSE TO QUALITY (CATQ):
l C
(CONTINUED ON ATTACHED SHEET DATE WHEN CORRECTIVE ACTION WILL BE COMPLETED:
SCHEDULE ATTACHED: TES/NO RESPONSE RECEIVED BY:'
'DATE:
SAT UNSAT COMMENTS:
l.
N*
\\
l ACTION TAKEN TO CORRECT CATQ':
i (CONTINUED ON ATTACHED SHEET)I DATE WHEN CORRECTIVE ACTION WILL BE COMPLETED SCHEDULE ATTACHED: YES/NO J
RESPONSE RECEIVED BY:
DATE:
SAT UNSAT WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT DATES FOLLOW-UP CORRECTIVE ACTION COMPLETED:
l VERIFICATION CORRECTIVE ACTION VERIFIED i
,. _ _.I
--.. _~
kxC1 dI*
J CAR NO.
CORRECTIVE ACTION ITEM NO*
PROGRESS REPORT PAGE OF
.DATE ASSIGNEE _
ACTION ~B; FOLLOW UP ACTIONS AND STATUS e
e 9
0
..,.. ~. - -
. +...
(.,r l
l l
4 i
t l -
we'ne-..eww
~--
~~ ~
~
ic.9. w i
~
. BLUE SHEET ius, - e 4.2.7 FORM - 001 PAGE 1
OF 1 SEABROOK STATION MAR 9-1932 038C NO' REQUEST FOR FOLLOW-UP ACTION
-.;b[..',bbic J i.
NRC INSPECTIONS i
9 VL/
TO:
UE&C RCM/ Power Engineering DATE:
3/9/82 Inspection item
Description:
The welding of attachments across UNIT:
1&2 i
(transverso to the beam axis) the tension flange of beams except as shown on UE&C design drawing is not permitted unless approved by the construction managers. All of UESC Specific'ations address this area differently.
.e.m.-
O,
-drrective Action Required:
Ref. UE&C Memo S/L CE1652, dated Nov. 19, 1981 and UE&C Power Engineering Letter, Feb. 5, 1982, response to B.S. 038A and 038B:
1.
Torsion limitations are outlined on inemo MM7610. This memo has not been utilized in support design for cable tray and conduit supports. Realizing torsion is not accounted for, for normal design loading, how does UE&C, account for torsional i
i loadinn in structural framing for the above mentioned supports?
l l
1 A
l
,,n Date Required: 3k2 Approved WW. SiGeton
~
j Requested By:((
/YIEC'FOAE ((
l NOTE: Contractor is requested to respond by memo referring ident. number of this report.
g P.es3 JRef.7,e '90 21:13 tMT SET.BR00lf STATION - 9763
, FORM 3500 MEMORANDUM
[uilimdsitgDtsama W.
9763.006 O m et:
Philadelphia Dire March 23, 1982 Dan.; ~ Engineering - Power Division mi-8802A To:
Hareesh Shah - Field COPIES:
See Distribution File No.:
1.0.1.22 No Response Required psgou,
D. D. Boyle - 06UO SusJacT:
Public Service Company of New Hampshire Seabrook Station j
Weldina to Dean Flanac;3,,- Blue Sheet 38C
~-
References W-8039A - Response to Blue Sheet 38 m-8470A - Responsa to Blue Sheet 38A Attached response to Blue Sheet 383 Inspection Item Description _of Blue Sheet 38C "The welding of attachments across (transverse to the beam axis) the
tension flange of beams except as shown on UE&C design drawing is not
._ /-g permitted unless approved by the construction manasers.
All of UE&C N,/ -
Specifications address this area differently."
Corrective Action Raouired:
"Raf. UEEC memo S/L CE1652, dated November 19, 1981 and UE&C Power j
-Engineering Letter, February 5,1982, response to 3.S. 038A and 0385:
-l 1.
Torsion limitatiota are outlined on memo M -7610.
This memo has not been utilized in support design for cable tray and conduit supports. Realizing torsion is not accounted for, for hermal
,l design loading, how does UE&C account for torsional loading in structural framing for the above mentioned supports?"
.i i
Responses t
This is not a deficiency.
' i No corrective action is required.
l l
l Discussion:
The allowable torsion curves contained in memo M-7610 have been used in
'l the design of crble tray and conduit supports where torsion is unavoidable.
At the top of t'..e curves in the memo it clearly states, "for conduit supports." s e
In drawins 300228, Rev.16, conduit tables are provided on sheets 12C and-Thess 12C1 providing the minimum size building steel for the support types.
1 l
i l
. ~.. - -.... _........, _ _, _
.. - - - -._ 2... : ~. -.
L g
Jr.w.go.'ee 21:15 ant sr.ns :ook sinTION - 9733 p,gg4 4
2-i Discussions (Cont'd.)
building steel tables were developed using the same allowable beam torsion curves as used for the~ design of pipe supports. The Conduit Notes and details on sheet 3E note F.4.C. states, "The method of attaching to steel
_ ___._ framing and welding details for these attachments shall remain as shown and noted on the sheets included in these notes and details." Supports are i
_____shown_od beam centerline or with the limits of off center supports as shown on sheet C-12.
~~ The Cable Tfay~ System Notes and Details sheet 3B note 7.4.C repeats the quota-
^
tion above and attachments ara shown on the beam centerlines. ECA-013152A of
- --_~
~ ~ March'~5, 1982~recently reemphasized that:
"for support details which attach to the bottom flanges of structural steel beams, the location of the support attachment shall be restricted to the centerline of the affected beam,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
exceptions to be submitted to site engineering for approval. Any support
+
which-does-not-mast above mentioned criteria is to be documented in the form of as-built".
101-8470A, response to Blue Sheet 38A, UE&C will.
As previously discussed in
.--.-. ' Irun a beam design verification program after major installations have been r.
. completed. The program will detect'any overload conditions, including any
~
_.- __--_ torsional.. loads.
If you_should have any questions, please call.
.m g
+ - -,
/
o f
D. D. Bo l
DDB/ cod 8
Attachment-i I
t t
I g
OU I
d
'h
- - ~ ~
[
nw.2s.'ee 2: is ont str.exoor sinTrow - srss P.ees RESPONSE TO ELtTE SHEET #38B 1(a) Estimated uniformly distributed load due to equipment and piping along with Dead, Live and other design loads are considered in the design sf all structural framing members per procedures stated in the Structural Design Criteria (SD-66), Pages 18 through 24. The containment annulus steel framing has also been re-evaluated based on frequency criteria (thus assuring low stress levels) per the General Proceduras for Re-svaluation of Cont =4= ant Annulus Steel Framing (Appendix to SD-66).
Any secondary stress which could be imposed on the framing due the i
configuration of attachments of supplementary and support connections is not considered separately at this stage of design and construction.
Estimated design loads are conservative and can safely be assumed to
_;; _i cover all primary sad secondary loading conditions.
(b)-
The ' construction management is not required to review the stress condition of the structural framing. The stresses are controlled by engineering per procedures described in (a).. Please also see response to Blue Sheet 38A, where we withdraw design requirements from Spec 12-2.
u
+
(c)
Field welding of attachments across (i.e.' transverse to the beam axis) the tension flange is controlled at the design stage by keeping the weld ei a
length within 75% of the flange width. Supports requiring cross flange l
field welding are located to avoid high stressed areas. An examP a
/.- g would be avoiding cross flange welding on the tension flange in the
' _/
middle third span of a simply supported beam. Furthermore, safeguard is inherent in the design of all safety-related structures due to the fact that during construction when attachments are installed, the seismic sad majority of live loads are not present. The absence of these loads provides sufficient factors of safety against sudden failure.
a
'(d)
Physical intierferences are being checked by plotting all supports on supplementary steel / coordination plans. The final check of the stress condition of all framing members will be made by the beam design verification program during which all imposed loads will be considered.
-l l
2.
All loading conditions will be considered during the beam design verification' program. The program will detect all overload conditions. The verification program will be started soon after major installations have been completed.
3 i
The computerised beam verification program is scheduled to start by i
July 1, 1982.
l t
l
\\
U l
s o
y
~ --
JON.20.'88 31:18 SMT SEQBROOK STQTION - 0763 P.886
+
SHEET 1
QF 2
$.sto.60s arv.s/s cournacrom P-ROJECT CHANGE
'S }E M E@E D U
.SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR NOTES, INSTRUCTIONS AND OlSTRIBUTIONS.)
/*, AB ROOK STATION.
(
e1 Jl0 9' 7 6 3 3ili3 Tg 0F E C lA El,AL g,g 3;g:5i2 je Eg;',.cb.ren. sac ga DATE 3/2/82 i,e c
g R l SAFETY RELATED YES ZZ NO _
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE / REQUEST _
%sME YES NO
MA OQ tt !5 1 RE !E !S IT !E.II IC iT i L iC IN ' 30 tF ; II IL lE lC I !5 IP :T !s ; !O iW i 18 8 TIE lEiLi ! alm:S_.
,.,ica ns r. esin in me.sinaiso ninia.ia.inici=Im. oles sai ss.w mar s.,
i.ei..t.e tm i i uissi oi. issi
.e.
Add the following note to Canaral Notes - Supports of M. M-3002.28 and M. &300229L For support details whic.h attach to the bottom flanges of structural steel beans, the location of the support ste-6-at shall be restricted to the ceraterlina of the affected beam. exce).t-ions to be submitted to '51 tsp Engineering for approval. Any support wh:Leh does not meet i
above mentioned criteria is to be documented in the form of as-built.
,N_OTE t No retrofitting is required to already installed supports prior to issuance of this ECA<
REASON FOR CHANGE rio; lt;rtgj r;,r. lTioimi s!I:ot si t o!Ni : s! T'1: t C' a 't a a t I -. i l
REQUEST FOR INFO
,, s sa tis % m unrusaemow, wa ma mam% mrm. w.i oi.. inim.
iini.vws.i.om. ma w
.m i
Cable tray and-conduit supports have not been restricted to require-e
.cre.c.ca secuma.ts:"
eo mo ni >u.insineistinta no their ate.eh-c.to structural steel in such a -n=e :co avoid torsiona
w iw : 'is li '9 !T IA' strasses.
M. W300228 and M. x-300229 do not limit the contractor-A 1
n su M w i a n in 's is is to stemehing supports at the centroid or along the cantarlina of structural steel. The above mentioned change willrestrie.t/ limit torsic
D TWIG IM ;310101212 !9-in structural steeldue to alacerical supports.
-)i l i i ! ! !!!
2 l2 1 i'l lA 1
l F C R s
' pdblR F
I l : I
- "8V-conve's 33 wir cendr4eh
. fab Pne.
ACTION PARTY!
FIELD CONTACT *.
naast -
inlTIATs0 of TITha tfE R.C ren/sas/ars omaa.a zario. -
appnevas of WORKING DOCUMENT RES'D BYs sai/ren 1/15/82 asocussse worse rom casalmaron roe caart supr.
ron ass.co.sta.s.en.
oat:
AFFECTED DOCUMENTS pip.e mees own.s
{sursa ssismes posuuser er anei.icaa l
s u,_.,
i me-
..s.
- 1
..... s. r.o.
no e, en as e.instralertesise so so si sa as e.is i inefaeins se no eras es e.insiseinvirein soni ao e, s e_ :
ieswariss ia.e s.o. i ni 3
l s A R l'
ll1 l
o_w s n s d d :i! :il s o w e li i
s p E C ll' o w e n s.cl e di, o w s I
s p E c ll'u
[
E R l1l[cl[
t s
P E C I I ! -t I i
.i. i l'!
l l i o w s I-l o w s Ii L
j',
o w s l g 11 o w e llllt s :o l l
+ ! iIi I: 1iii inittat narr
.., vent e a r' RJ 11ch, Jr.
i
~l DCN/ECA APPROV4l.S PREPARED BY IaC N/A mEcM. SERV N/A ut C M.
N/A NUCLEAR N/A
,kesC ME WE Raading _ [S M
l Cl NE AFFECTED YEs NO I AmalTING
~{b[%
fW. SMh"IIn"[#
N/A' REVIEW _
a.
dAR BOSTON N/A STRUCT.
W/HR Ma
' ' _ _ ^_-
SAFETT RELATED APPROVAL PPROVCD m,
-ess on PTni estfreyfoes'cousta.smen.
FIELD /
OA CONTRACTOR AP9R0vatI.I I' A'N wo e,
we assu/kea
)],(( {2 YEQ 0,",'t, Afor-l
. [. !
vEs Ro
.. ~ ~ -... - -.,. - - -.. -.. -
-.----,-c---------
-m.
. ~. -. _. - -..
e JRN.{f.'DS 21:21 EMT SET.8200it STRTION - 9763 P.BO7,
. '. r2.
^
'9763 zcI*0t 3U2
~$' ~.'.r2W 22D 20:557[MT SERBROOK STATIC geortustao MEMORANOUM O
E M
M T & cons w cars ECA 01/3152
/
. shamt 2 of 2 9763.006 Orirics,:: Philadelphia m No.
Ensinaaring - P w er Division pai g: Decenhar 22, 1981 20 0 8197A.
DsPT.
Comes: AM Ebaar OF Kalan&
Yet h.F. McKenna DE Bhoads NE Sanshsvi DD Boyle DCC F11st 3.0.25 No Respcmse Reeuived
. peoM e A.J. Nulshisst.
)....
SuasseT Public Service Company of New Hampshire 1"
Saabrook Scation
'Itsesion of Structural Steel Rai.: MMt 7610X. dated August.20, 1981 i
By this asasi. we are approving the use of tharts,which wata attached to the refereses mean,for the satire Sombrook plant.
'zhis will allow you to design amaupports transeh*4 = a meninal to thm ="al men:baradTt shouas ie-senizared ifthere is t_ orad an
~
se than eee siippert on 'this atosi member and the total sorsion should t azeead the allowabia limits sat in the chart 3,-
w _
=
=
If thers era any questionee plasse feel free to contact us.
} < M. k s w a h :,-
1
, (.
g m
a. u suia..
.- i Wad
..n..
. '. -m n.~
= ' +..
m
~n s,
s..
,.- v um.. -
=
,.n n. xa v.
i 1
l
.. c.
~ :
a-
~
( j\\
).
i 1
i 2
~
3 e.
TI 2512/07 Appendix s l 4 l
i l
METRLTim TEAM INSPECTIM DEOLIST PACE _1_ Or 37 REVISION I
i CRNERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Controle REY. DATE 2/ lJ/ ni j
l SITE INSPECTOR-DATES OF INSPECTION l
l INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS i
i 1.
Implementation - Contractor / Licensee 1.1. Construction / Fabrication / Installation Adequacy 55 t91 (eM Select the appropriate IE Hodulee p t33 Coo) regarding (1) observation of Esn5N I) work and (2) records review for the g a y g(gw) subject inspection area.
g.,'gFollowtheinstructionandguidance only to the extent necessary to establish confidence that the activity is adequately egntrolled or to an extent that will support indicated enforcement actions by HRC. The specific instructions of the Modulas may be abandoned and replaced with independent pursuite that are determined to be more germane to the subject inspectf.on area, with concurrence of the team leader.
i Specific paragraphs of the applicable IE modules shall be added to this checklist in the space,provided with concurrence 'of the team leader.
I MMIM M IMCTIW OECEIST rh
%) 37 REVISION 1
CENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction controls REY. DATE 2/13/81 SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION INSPECTION AREA
' ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS e
b t
t a
t O
s
\\
x
Appengx5 CWSTIUCTim TF#1 INSPECTIGl OECEIST PA 0F REVISION 1
REY. DATE 2/13/81 CENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Controls SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS l
D
8 i
r TI 2512/07 Appendix 5 GETRLTIGliFAM ItMRilGI GEr11ST PACE 4 Or n
~
REVISION 1
I A
2#I3#0I GENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Controls i'
i SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION
._ u l
INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS l
2 s
i 1
e t
O e
o O
l l
e
~
,~
~
j TI 2512/07 Appendix 5 C0tETRLTIGl TFM INSPECTI0fl GECKLIST '
race s or_37_
i REVISION.
1 REY. DATE 2/13/81 CENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Controls SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION
~ -~~'
FINDINGS INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA l
I 1.2 Is the_ mission or t,a_Q for each organization involved q1. ear _1y documented 1 1.3 lias the support required for the mission or task,been clearly t
documented and planned for7 1.4 Do involved personnel regardless of extent of responsibility under-stand the overall task or mission?
Do they clearly understand how their responsibility supports the mission?
1.5 Is the identified mission or task Subjective evaluation appropriate?
1.6 QA/QC organization Subjective evaluation
- Is the location of housing con-veniently near the location of the work activitly?
j
- Are work areas, supplies, and records maintenance facilities adequate?
- Aro special tools and equipment immendiately available and sufficient in number?
CmSTRUCTim TEM If&ECTI0fl OEd(LIST VACE f 0[PP' $
3
8 REVISION I
GENERAL INSPECTION AREA ConstructionConhrols REV. DATE 2/13/U1
~
SITE
' INSPECTOR
! DATES OF INSPECTION
--.u..._...
INSPECTION' AREA' ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINCS t
- Are the provisions for all the above commensurate with other site organizations?
- Are there any identifiable con-ditions which adversely affect functions of the QA/QC organiza-tion?
1.7 Hanpower Resources
- Are there documented work pro-jections showing QA/QC manpower requirements over the course of construction?
- Is the current manpower adequate to sufficiently support the level of activity?
- Is the current manpower (manage-ment and staff) clearly qualified?
- Have documented QA/QC manpower requests and justifications been expediously handled by management? Have they been handled in accordance with documented administrative procedures?
N,
.~~
.~g p
TI 2512/07 Appendix 5 NMIM M IMCTIm 0FD1_IST l
PACE 7 Or 37
.I REVISION 1
. DATE 2MM CENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Controls SITE INSPECTOR
~ DATES OF INSPECTION
- =
i INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS
- Are the administrative procedures l
clearly responsibe'to the unique conditions at the construction site?
(i.e.., rapid changes.in needs)
- Do manpower requests clearly identify the level of qualifica-tions (education and experience) needed?
- Is the monetary compensation, relative to other trades,-such that clearly qualified and capable candidates will be ettracted to l
these positions?
t.*
1.8 Personnel Qualifications
- Is there a documented system for the training and indoctrin-ation of personnel?
- Is there a documented system to assure that personnel qualifica-tions are maintained and changed as needed?
- Is there a system to'essily verify the status of personnel qualifica-tions?
1 l
I 1
TI 2512/07 App.indix 5 OGEEUCTIGI T@ JNSPECTIQl DEdd.IS[
race _a.__Or -- 37 REVISION 1
.t W.DM 2/13/81 CENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Controls SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION
.._-.._u,,
INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS l
- Is there a mechanism which clearly informa personnel of the status of their qualifications?
- Are qualifications responsive to and in accordance with require-ments?
l
- Do the contacted personnel perceive any prnblems with current qualifica-i tions system and associated records 1 NOTE: Confirm the implementation and evaluate the adequacy of each of the elements above.
.i 1.9 Craftsmen Regulatory r.uide 1.28 1
Regulatory Guide 1.74
- Is there an adequate supply of ANSI N45.2 qualified craftsmen?
ANSI M45.2.10 ANSI M45.2.23
- When fully qualified (journeyman) 10 CFR Part 50 Apx B.
j craftsmen are not available, what Criterion 11 provisions have been established to assure quality production?
- Are'there training and indoctrin-ation programs for craftsmen?
- Are records of such training maintained?
,r~.
,.~,
~
/
g s
e TI 2512/07 DESTRLTI@l TDN INSPELTIQl DECKLIST PM'fM 37
~
REVISION
'l REV. DATE
. 2/I3/81 CENEP4L INSPECTION AREA Construction Controls SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITF.RIA FINDINGS
- Is such training periodicS.y updated?
- Elicit the opinions of such train-ing and indoctrination from crafts-nen contacted.
1.10 Employee Morale Subjective evaluation During the conduct of any portion of these checklists, elicit from the persons contacted their opinions relative to the adequacy oft
- construction management;
- concern for a quality product;
- working conditions;
- harmony between construction and l
QA/QC organizations;
- harmony between the various design, engineering and construction per-i sonnel; and procurement organira-tions;
- personnel management practices;
- compensation and work loading (i.e., overtime) practicest
L UETRI. IM TEN 1 INsitcilm OEdiiST
'I *'$0r 77Pendix 5 T
PAcz REVISION 1
CENERAL IllSPECTION AREA Construction Co'ntrols REY. DATE 2/13/81 SITE
. INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION
_..___u INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE. CRITERIA
, FINDINGS j
personal safety and related issues.
0 Based on an assessment of,the above,'
make a subjective determination of S
employee morale. This consideration is for management, staff, and crafts-men.
, ~
1.11 Construction /QA/QC Orsanization
Regulatory Guide 1.28 Interface Control Regulatory Guide 1,74
.. Regulatory' Guide 1.123 1.11.1 Are documented administrative pro.
ANSI N45.2 cedures defining organizational'
ANSI N45.2.10 interfaces in use?-
. ANSI M45.2.13 1.11.2 Do forms and records used to communi-cate across such interfaces conform to the requirements of the QA program and administrative procedures?
1.11.3 Is there a functional flow chart demonstrating how information flows across the interfaces? If not, is there an adequate documented descrip-
!. ion of information flow?
1.11.4 Examine interface documents used in this area and determine the followings
'N
.***g e
i
.3 l
r l
4 MMIm M IMCTim OECEIST_
PACE OF 17 REVISION,
1 REV. DATE 2/13/81 CENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Controls SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS r
I Documents and records clearly identify the subject, its specified criteria, the authority of the signature (s), date, the action acc~omplished, and the unique identity of the document.
Is the document traceable and is the scope of addressees appropri-stat 1.11.5 Examine any deficiency noted above to the extent that a clear corree-tive action can be established.
1.11.6 Are the contseted personnel clearly knowledgeable of the interface con-trol system?
1.11.7 Elicit employee opinions relative to the adequacy of the system examined.
1.12 Document Contrcl In this inspection area determine.if documents are being issued, revised, handled, stored, and discarded in accordance with QA program, adminis -
trative procedures and other desig-nated requirements.
.f.
i TI 2512/07 Appendix 5 GETRLTIGl TEAM IllSPECTIGl DEDLIST :
Pact _1L0r 37 REVISION I
I-CENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction controls REV* DATE 4/8J/05 SITE
~
'INSFECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION 4
INSFECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITRIA FINDINGS b
1.12.1 Has a central document control facility been established?
j
- Are the facilities and control systems adequate?
- Are the document receipiente aware j
of the interfaces control between their organizations and central l
document controlf
)
- Are material / fabrication qualifica-tion and inspection records adequ-ately controlled by the documenta-i tion control center?
1.12.2 Are there clearly defined indications of the status of each document (i.e..
controlled or not) on the document?
i 1.12.3,
Do personnel clearly understand that
?
uncontrolled documente are not to be used for construction or decisione I
relative to constructionef 1.12. 4 Tsetermine through review if personnel have to extent necessary, access to controlled documente; l
- Are such documents available at the work location?
I,
i e
T'7"13ar T
5
/"
MNIW M IMGlm 0FE_M rAC REVISION 1
GENERAL IMSPECTION AREA Construction Controls REY. DATE 2/13/81 SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION N
INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE. CRITERIA FINDINGS I,
1.12.5 Do recipients of controlled documents clearly understand their responsibili-ties relative to handling and follow-ing these documents?
Do personnel using these documents -
know how to initiate a change to these documents?
I Is there a system which directly informs the document receipt of changes?
Is the document recipient knowledge-able of this sytem?
1.12.6 Examine a variety of controlled documents in use at any field location to determine if they are in fact controlled in accord-ance with the requirements.
Determine if issued documents are maintained in a legible condition free of personal notes and/or comunents.
Is a clear record maintained for
" voided" controlled documents an,h.. men.
i.....
4..
1 T'c'!Ter
@P'"di"8 CG6TRI. IGl TE#1 INSPECTIGl DEGLIST T
rA REVISION _
1 REY. DATE 2/13/g1 CENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Centrols 4
SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA i
FINDINGS i
l
.....~ -.
i i
1 Are uncontrolled documents such se memorands, " notes", etc. used to supplant or circumvent controlled documents used to to report problems and other adverse issues.
1.12.7 Elicit opinions from contacted personnel relative to the adequacy of document control.
e o
i l
1 1
D 1
1
,. 3
e.
3 l
I TI 2512/07 Appendix 5 or 37 EIEUI@lIf#!_INSitLIiGI OMI Pact m 'I REVISION
. DATE WM l
GENERAL INSPECTION AREA _ Construction Controls t
DATES OF INSPECTION INSPECTOR j
SITE
,._-__. =
FINDINGS INSPECTION AREA
~
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA a
i Regulatory Guide 1.28 1.13 Audits / Surveillance _
Regulatory Guide 1.74 ANSI N45.2 Has a comprehensive schedule and ANSI N45.2.10 1.13.1 audit plan been established?
ANSI N45.2.12 j
AN91 N45.2.23
- Is the plan regularly reviewed and updated in response to' con-l struction progress of identification i
of adverse conditions?
l
- What is the implementation status of this plant (behind schedule or 4
not)
- If planned audits / surveillance t
were missed determine why they were missed.
4 Review audit and surveillance l
1.13.2 reports, associated checklists l
and not the basis (planned or problem inittsted). Determine ift i
i
- The scope of the activity was i'
appropriate.
.s
- If personnel conducting the audit were appropriately qualified.
- If audit checklist appropriately addressed the specified require-ments.
1
~'
e Appendix 5
@ nim TE#1 IMCTIm DWg TCl5%r~I**~~
3
~ :
REVISION W. DATE '2/13/81
~
CENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Controls i
SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION
..._......_.__u INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS
- If the audit basis and findings are clearly documented.
- If the QA auditors were adequately j
supported by technically qualified personnel (i.e., metallurgist.
l discipline engineers and appropri-l ate).
j
- If the audit surveillance results are appropriately distributed to affected organizations.
- If management effectively evaluates audit / findings, as shown by docu-mented involvement.
- D9es management regularly use this information to effectively evaluate the quality of the construction effort?
1.14 Audit / Surveillance Follow-up i
Determine through review, if follow-up and corrective actions for adverse i
surveillance and sudit findings are appropriate, including:
4
- notificiation of affected organ-izations; 0
a
)
o
~
TI 2512/07 Appendix 5 MNim Hi IfLittilW OECEIST PACE 15 0F 37 REVISION
T REV. DATE 2/13/81 GENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Controls SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA I
FINDINGS I
.e i
1.13 Audits / Surveillance
' Regulatory Guide 1.28 l'
Regulatory Guide 1.74
'1.13.1 Has a comprehensive schedule and ANSI N45.2 audit plan been established?
ANSI N45.2.10 ANSI N45.2.12
- Is the plan regularly reviewed ANSI N45.2.23 and updated in response to con-struction progress of identification of adverse conditions?
- What is the implementation status of this plan?
(behind schedule or not)
- If planned audits / surveillance vere missed determine why theyt were missed.
1.13.2 Review audit and surveillance reports, associated checklists and not the basis (planned or problem initiated). Determine ift
- The scope of the activity was appropriate.
- If personnel conducting the audit were appropriately qualified.
- If audit checklist appropriately addressed the specified require-ments.
i
.3 i
j TI 2512/07 Appendix 5 CWSTRK. im 10#1 IllSPECTim DECKLIST PACE n Or 37 T
I
~
REVISION
~l REV. DATE 2/13/81 CENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Controls I
DATES OF INSPECTION INSPECTOR i
SITE
.._.-_a FINDIHCS l
INSPECTION AREA
, ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA I
l
- notification of ef fective favels of management;
- identification and control of the nonconforming item of serv,1ce:
- identification of specific time limits for corrective actions; i
- determination of adverse trends;
- consideration for additional management actions to effect resolution of problems.
1.14.1
' Discuss the audit and surveillance reports with the managers whose organizations were audited. Determine ift
- management is knowledgeable of findings and their significance;
- management has taken other actions to resolve problems;
- management attitude regarding quality issues is appropriate.
l TI 2512/07 CRETlHT. IGi TEAM INSittil&l DEDLIST '
Tl&1'Or d
u REVISION 1
CENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Controls REV. DATE 9/13/g1 SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION INSPECTION AREA
' ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS l
l 1.15 Hold Points
' Regulatory cuide 1.28 Regulatory Culde 1.74 Frequently QA/QC systems and associ-ANSI N45.2 ated administrative procedures ANSI N45.2.10 established hold-points to limit the progress of an activity uncil confirmation of adequacy has been established by properly qualified persons or organizations.
Identify hold-points for activities in this inspection area and deter.
mine if:
- personnel understand the hold-point system;
- established hold-points are appro-priate;
- QA/QC regularly audits the perform-ance of personnel relative to hold-points;
- QA/QC has identified any organtastions who abuse the hold-point system by not stop-ping the activity santil required confirmations are in P ace; l
O I
i 9
s 8
O TI 2512/07 i
Appendix 5
@MI@ M IfMCE,,QECQ!%
PAGE ia OF 37 j
REVISION 1
REV. DATE 2/13/81 GENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Controls i
SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION l
INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS corrective actions taken or speci-fled for any. abuse of hold-points was appropriate.
1.16 Stop-Work /Stop-Process
- Determine through conversation if QA/QC personnel clearly understand and exercise their stop-work /stop process authority and responsibil-ity.
- Determine through discussion if the QA/QC organization management and staff have any reservations about exercising this authority.
- Determine through discussion ~if the practices at the site com-promise QA/QC exercise of' this authroity.
1.16.1 Examine the functional implementation of stop-work /stop-process authority
~
established by the QA/QC programs and administrative procedures to deter-mine if:
- QA/QC can act unilateraly in this regard or to what extent:
1
- management adequately supports QA/QC actions in this regard; j
i i
MNim M Ihllm ORIE pAWy/07byf 3,
TI 2512 t
CENERAL INSPECTION APEA j
31TE Construction Controls REVISION _
1 INSPECTOR M. DATE_
~
2/13/81
]
! DATES OF INSPECTION INSPECTION AREA mmm MRM FINDINGS
- that this authority had been sufficiently delegated down to i
the lowest practical level of i
the QA/QC organisation.
1.16.2
)
Review any records demonstrating i
QA/QC Stop-work /stop process l
I implementation and determine 1
ift I
i
- management adequately supported i
the actiong
-affectedorganisationtookeffec-f 8
tive corrective action; J
corrective actions were timely
-and effectivet
- actions to preclude re-occurrence j
were taken.
t i
1.17 i
Records System and Facilities 1
Regulatory Cuide 1.28 i
- Determine if all QA/QC and Regulatory Cuide 1.74 construction management person-Regulatory Culd, 1.88 nel have received training and ANSI N45.2 j
indoctrination regarding the ANSI N45.2.!O
.I j
principal records maintenance ANSI N45.2.9 system..
10 CFR 50, Apx B. Crit i
i XVII
[
I
_,3
^~
s l
m.,.
1 TI 2512/07
@MIE E IkitCl10! 0Ff11ST l Appendix 5 l
PACE M OF 37 REVISION I
i CENERAL INSPECTION AREA ConstructionContrbia REY. DATE 2/13/81 i
SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION INSPECTION AREA l ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS e
i
- Determine if any involved individ-ual can adequately access the re-cord system.
2
- Determine if records are identifiable i
and retrievable with ease and facility.
- Determine if records and properly j
stored and safe guarded.
- Determine if record interface i
control between individuals and organizations is in accordance with QA/QC and administrative procedures.
- Determine how record or document-l ation deficiencies are identified and controlled until resolved.
l 1.17.1 Determine if records contain the minimum required information.
- Deternine if information is clear and legible.
i
- If initials are used to sign I
records, determine if cross reference to full names are j
available.
l
l.
~..
TI 2512/07 i
App;ndix 5
@ E I E D Ill i t [ il @ Ef M M -
PACE LOF 17 j
REVISION 1
CENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction "Jntrols REV. DATE 2/13/g1 SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS t
\\.
, t...
1.18 Nonconformance and Trendins Regulatory Guide 1.28 Regulatory Guide 1.74
- Determine if nonconforming items.
ANSI. N45.2 or services are being routinely ANSI N45.10 identified and documented.
~
(Discuss and record review.)
- Determine h,ow many types.or.
categories of nonconformance documentation is used.
(i.e.,
.i
" Deficiency Reports", " Corrective-Action Requests", " Deviation Reports", and " Audit Findings",
etc.
- Determine if proposed corrective actions are appropriate and timely.
- Determine if prescribed levels of authority and independence.
concurred in resolution.of issue.
- Determine if nonconformance and corrective action documentation is properly identified and con-trolled.
e r,
i
)
i TI 2512/07 Appendix 5 MNIm lT#1 IfffEclim gel 1151' PAGE L OF 37 REVISION I
CENERAI. INSPECTION AREA Construction Controls M. DATE 4WN SITE INSPECTOR
! DATES OF INSPECTION INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITEP.IA FINDINGS t
- Is a central log identifying nonconformance documentation maintained? Is it adequate?
- By record review, determine if procedures controlling noncon-formance documentation are adhered to..
1.18.1 Determine if there is a systematic and regularly reviewed " Trending" of repeat nonconformances.
1.18.2 Determine if the trending program includes all types or categories of nonconformances.
(i.e., "Defici-ency Reports", "Nonconformance Reports", " Deviation Reports", and
" Audit Findings"n etc.
- If it does not, establish the reason.
- Determine if the " Trending" system used by contractors and licensee are compatable or interface adequately.
- Review corrective action caused by the identification of adverse trends.
TI 2512/07 H 5 C0fGTETIGlIF#1 If&TfiiDi UEcklj5r AWdH b_Or 37 REVISION 1
i REY. DATE 2/13/81 CENERAL INSPECTION AREA Coce ttsatf ou,C_ontrols i
SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION
-._. m INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRT.TERIA l
FINDINGS i
t i
1.18.3 Determine if the subject organizations' management regularly reviews noncon-formance summary reports and trend evaluations.
- Determine if the subject organiza-tions' management took any actions or wrote any directives as a result of this information.
l 1.18.4 Determine if involved personnel under-stand the system for identification and control of nonconformances.
- Did they receive adequate training?
1.19 Construction Contrals Regulatory Guide 1.28 i
Regulatory Guide 1.74 Determine how the site construction ANSI N45.2.4 orhanizations are organized to' con-ANSI N45.2.23 trol the subject construction activity ANSI N&5.2.12 and evaluate the adequacy of QA/QC ANSI N45.2.13 interfaces with these construction ANSI N45.2 organizations. The specific elements ANSI M45.10 to consider are
- Is the organization arrangement functionally resre-:1ve to QA/QC and Administrative procedures?
- Adequate QA/QC participation in specific construction activities.
i
[.;_ _
o i
)
.u I
ll t
TI 2512/07 G16TRI. I(N YAM ltGTCTIGtGRMJg APP x5 i
T l
j REVIS 1
CgNERAL INSPECTION ARRA Constructica Controls M. DATE 2/13/81 SITE INSPECTOR
_l DATES OF INSPECTION
-_y.._-..
l INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTA2CE CR1YEIIA FINDINGS f
- Assignment of QA/QC management and staff to specific areas of contractor j,
responsibility.
- Is information flow for hold-point notification clearly provided for l'
and do involved personnel under-j stand the system?
l 1.19.1 Does the QA/QC organization participate in work planning an'd scheduling meetings?
Determine the existance and adequacy l
of the following
- Does QA/QC management forecast it's staffing requirements and assign-mente based on particpation in scheduling and planning meetings?
- Examine records attesting to this participation'and evaluate the extent of participation.
1.19.2 Is there adequate coverage of activit-l tes by the QA/QC organisation? Deter-l mine by:
- discussions with QA/QC inspectorsg j
- discussion with craftemen, shop stewarts, and third party inspectorat M:
f-
3 l
TI 2512/07 j
l Appendix 5 (QlSIIHIlGLIEMI IIEPECTIGl GE04 IST FACE.26_0F _ i u REVISION 1
s CINERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Co trols i
I, SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION i.
INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS i
- discussion with craft supervision personnel.
1,19,3 Determine to the extent possibles
- if there are any instances where-in a work activity was.stoppe'd because of the unavailability of '
t QA/QC participation and why they were unavilable by:
l
- discussion with production managers; l
- concurrently determine the pro-i duction managers attitude regarding the adequacy and availability of QA/QC staff; 1
- review and discussion of procedures written to preclude ongoing activit-l 1es without QA/QC participation;
- determine extent of licensee manage-ment notification. and participation in the resolution of the problem associated with these considerations; e
s
. i.
i MNI M If N i E D EC EIST_
PAGE 2 0F REVISION 1
REV. DATE 2/13/81 GENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construntion Controls t
SITE INSPECTOR.
DATES OF INSPECTION ACCEPTANCE CRIT):,RIA FINDINGS INSPECTION AREA
}
4 i
1 1.20 Equipment Qualification and Fegulatory Guide 1.28 4
Regulatory Guide 1.74 1
Calibration Regulatory Guide 1.23 Confirm through records review ANSI N45.2 4
that the QA/QC and administrative ANSI N45.2.10 procedural requirements for equip-ANSI N45.2.13 ment and materials qualification /
calibration are adhered to by the following:
verify thint responsible personnel are qualified to make determina-tions as to adequacy 3 verify that such items are labeled to show atatus:
verify that adequate documentation is available to support acceptability:
verify adequacy of item by comparison and evaluation of purchase order specification, receipt inspection records, and other pertinent records:
verify the traceability of qualif-ication/ calibration records to items is maintained.
I elicit commients'and opinions from~
contacted personnel regarding
1
~'
!' ~
Appnidix 5 7
UIETRLTim TEM INsitt:ilm UELYdhT!
PAos_za_or M
REVISION 1
g 2/ W 81 Construe _t_fca Coatrela l-i GsNERAI. INSFECTION AREA t
t SITE INSFECTOR DATES OF INSFECTION l;
INSFECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS
\\
1
- review outstanding nonconformances i
and open items involving the subj.ect l
Inspection area.
I Handlina and Storage of Materials Regulatory Guide 1.28 1.21 Regulatory Guide 1.37 l
Determine if the implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.74 meterial and equipment handling, ANSI N45.2 ANSI N45.2.1.
storage, shipping, cleaning, and l
ANSI N45.2.2 preservation is in accordance f
with QA/QC and administrative ANSI N45.2.10 procedures and instructions by the following
- observe all storage areas for i
. subject items 3
\\
e 1;
i
- verify the adequacy of storage i
of selected itemag 4
f
- review QA/QC surveillance records
',I for frequency and comprehensive-l ness of inspectiong
- determine awareness and qualifica-7 1
tion of store-keeperst b
- determine the adequacy of issue d
controit I
- are conditional releases used and j
are the appropriately contro11eds a
1
. p.
3, TI 2512/07 UETRLTIGl TERN INSPECTIGl DEddSI AM W Y 0r u
l REVISION i
GENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction _ Controls REY. DATE 9/11/ni SITE f
INSPECTOR DATES Or INSPECTION INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANC CRITFI.IA FINDINGS
- observe material handling and handling equipment; determine adequacy;
- evaluate housekeeping conditionst
- evaluate fire and other hasard protectioni
- evaluate adequacy of storage areas;
- determine if there are controlled areas for nonconforming items;
- are there adequate measures to preclude use of nonconforming items;
- are nonconforming items adequately identified;
- are manufacturer's recommendations appropriately addressed
- are material control personnel adequately trained and indoctrinated regarding QA/QC requiremente?
4 A
~
l I
E IECII@OMIS['
REVISION 1
PACE OF 3
i GENERAL INSPECTION ADEA Construction control's REY. DATE 2/13/5!
i' SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION i
... _ _ _ _ _ _, i 1
l INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CP.ITERIA 1.
-FINDINGS i
4 l
2.
Management Involvement QA/QC Organization Regulatory Gei.f4 1.26 l
Corporate / Site Regt:14tcry Cride 1."#4
. ANSI N45.2 2.1 Does the documented policy state-
., ANSI N45.2.10 ment include a concise definition ANSI M45.2.3 of the management mission or task SAI Chepter li objectivest e
t 2.2 Determine through discussion.if principal management personnel clearly understand and support quality assurance constituents and requirements.
~
2.3 Do principal corporate individuals assigned responsibility for QA/QC direction, have responsibilities for other areas: Does multiple responsibility adversely affect QA/QCf 2.4 Does corporate management have clearly defined administrative procedures controlling the delegation of authority?
Does the assigned individual have clearly defined r,esponsi-bilities and authority?
er e
g 1
r
,p.
.._. f..
g e
i TI 2512/07 Appendix 5 CGETRETIM TFM IECTIGl DEdd_IST PACE L OF 37 l
REVISION I
CENERAL INSPECTION AREA _ Construction Controls REV. DATE 2/13/81 SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION 4
_ __.=, ;_m.2_..
INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
{
FINDINGS I
J 2.5 Does corporate management regularly review the performance of individ-uals with delegated responsibilitieel i
Now frequently does corporate management visit the site? Does it appear adequate?
4 Does corporate management rou-tinely review audit and noncon-l formance trending reports from the site? From vendors and suppliers?
Is there documented evidence that corporate management positively responds to adverse 3
routine site audits? Surveil '
lance and nonconformance report summaries and trendatf. From vendors and suppliers?
l Does corporate management i
routinely follow-up on the effectiveness of their corrective action directives?
Is' follow-up comprehensive and effective?
i
,,c.,..-.
j GETRLTIM TIW1 IfEPELTim DErXIST, Ncs'$ 7
^$$"d'*'
8 0r 4.
l REVISION 1 ~~
~
GENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Controls REY. DATE 2/13/81 i
SITE INSPECTOR
!DATESOFINSPECTION INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS 2.6 Does corporate management'have a i
doctamented plan and schedule for independent management audits of all site activitiest How frequently do these audits occur?
Have previous audits been com-prehensive and substantivd in t
their implementation?
I What is the implementation status of this independent audit function? (On schedule or nott)
If not on schedule, examine the cause.
Note any indication of e porate management attitude
~
problems.
Is there documented evidence that management took comprehensive corrective actions for all noted nonconformances and further examined and evaluated all concerns and observations?
- Was corrective action followed up in a timely and effective manner, and its implementation verified by corporate management? Were additional follow-up audits directed by corporate management?
i TI 2512/07 Appendix 5
@6fRI, IGi WRI!!SKCTd' LUECEISri PACE 33 Or 37_
T REVISION l CENERAL INSPECTIO*! ARCA_ Construction _ Controls
. DA E 2/13/M I
SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION i
INSPECIION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS t
Determine through meeting record review, and discussions with f
corporate management personnel if the QA/QC organization is l!.
provided support and considera-tion cosamensurate with that provided other construction organizations?
i, 2.7 Examine the organization and opera-i tion of the corporate management individuals or groups responsible for evaluation and approval of QA/QC manpower request.
Were assessment and approvals responsive to demonstrated needs?
Was adequate compensation, relati"e to other trades, estab-lished to attract fully qualified candidates?
Were the evaluations and appro-vals reasonable in the context of justified need?
Is unjustified rigor imposed on the justification for such requisitions?
- - i M N ImTMilBMIm0W qi M f orAPPgdix5 REVISION i
l:
i, GENERAL INSFECTION AREA _ Ceastruction controla REV. DATE _2/13/A1
~
j i'
t' SITE INSPECTOR LATES OP INSPECTION
.. ~ _ _ _ _. _
s INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTAMCE CRITERIA FINDINGS' t
I t'
2.8 Examine the organization and opera-g.
tion of corporate management indivi-6 i
duals or groups responsible for evaluating and approving QA/QC housing equipment and facility '
i requisitions.
Were assessments and approvals /
denials adequately responsive l
to justified needs?
Corroborate opinions of site based QA/QC management by discussion with QA/QC auditors and inspectors and document conclusions.
2.9 Has the licensee established a QA l.
review committeet What is the. composition of the committee (i.e., job descrip-tions of individuals)?
i l
Are the responsibilities and interfaces clearly documented?
l
' ('
Does the review committee meet frequently enough to be effec-tive?
i ll l '
(
o.
I ;
(
e
, j. _
i NEIh E IECf5MEM GE OF i
REVISION 1
GENERAL INSPECTION AREA __Ccastruction Centrols REV. DATE 2/13/81 SITE
. INSPECTOR.
DATES OF INSPECTION INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS 7..._.
i
{
i Does the review committee followup' on its directives?
Does corporate management take initiative regarding safety issues or wait for expression of NRC concern?
(Verify through inspection experi-ence and any indication of un-addressed prior knowledge of nonconforming conditions).
Is corporate management adequately responsive to NRC concerns and noncompliance items?
2.10 Hansgement Effectineness (Through records review and discuss-lon with personnel, evaluate the following):
2.10.1 Are responsibilities of management and subordinates clearly defined?
2.10.2 Do corporate management and sub-ordinates appear to completely understand their responsibilitiest i
2.10.3 Are subordinates held accountable for assigned responsibilities?
C0f6TitLTim_IDVi !NSPECTION DEDilST" NG$"as'Or$f*" " '
REVISION 1
REY. DATE 2/13/81 GENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construct _ ion controls i
SITE INSPECTOR DATES OF INSPECTION l
I INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS
^
2.10.4 Are interfacing management activities between different oiganizations clearly defined?
2.10.5 Is the management attitude regard-ing safety related construction i
auch that adequate attention and suppoct can be expected in all areas of safety significance?
i t
2.10.6 Does corporate management provide adequate support and compensation, rela tive to other trades, tre assure that the requisite quality of personnel, materials, and services is available?
2.10.7 Does management require timely and thorough reporting of 50.55(e) and part 21 occurrences?
2.10.8 Is management kept adequately informed by subordinates?
2.10.9 Is management aware of current issues and problems?
O e
,e o
~
j.
TI 2512/07 Appendix 5 C@SIllUIM TtM ll6ttilGi GiECRIST PACS 37 Or 37 REVISION ~
l GENERAL INSPECTION AREA Construction Controle
. DATE _2/13/81 SITE INSPECTOR iDATES OF INSPECTION
_._-3 INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE ORITERTA f
FINDINGS
.. -..-l.
-. e i
2.10.10 Are subordinates informed by manage-ment?
What is the routine procedure?
1 What special procedures are implemented?
2.10.11 Does corporate management support the delega: ba c" stop/werk-stop process authority co lowest level practical (QA/QG inspet. tor)?
a 9
O
j..-..-..
I i.
\\.
.)
r l;
i ii TI 2512/07 APPenclx 6 CONSTRUCTICN TEAM INSPECT 10li CllECKLIS'T Page of 6 Revision No.
1 GENERAL INSPECTION APEA: PROCHREMENT CONTROLS - SITE Dal;e:-
2/13/81 INSPECTIONSETE:
1 INSPECTOR:
1 DATES OF INSPECTION _ / i to_ / J INSPECTION AREA hy ICE FINDINGS 4
3 3
1.
Program implementation '
1.1 Procurement Activity (Major Contractors /.
!l Disciplines / Subcontractors)
Selectively examine several procurement documents for major con. tractors, disciplines an<l/or subcontractors at the site.
2 1.1.1 Are the specified design parameters in
>J accordance with those ilsted in th:i SAR or other AE/ Licensee specifications applicable to the
.7 preparation of site procurement documents?
~
~
Is the AE/Itcensee monitoring site issued. procure-g ment documents for inclusion of th6se requirements
.?'
i 1.1.2 60 procurement specifications identify the j
appilcable technical requirements (i.e..'
appilcable codes and standards)?
p j'
1.1.3 Do the purchasing documents impose the requirements of 10 CFR 21 when " basic componentt"
^
' are purchased? (Basic components are. discussed l-inNUREG0302.)
1.1.4 Is the supplier on the ap' proved list of suppliers?
1.1. 5 Have the vendor's Quality Assurance Programs been audited by the purchaser organizatioi?
1.1. 6 Do procurement specifications identify appropriate QA requirements including requirements t
to protect the item against environmental condi-l tions for periods of long-tem storage (i.e., hot and humid, sub ect to ocean atmosphere, cold
4 t
.., L
- ' * * ~. ~ ~ '
'4 i
i-TI25g2/07 Agendix6 CONSTRUCTION TEAM INSPECTION CHECVLi$T '
hh j,I y GENERAL INSPECTION AREAt PROCUP.EHENT CONTROLS - SITE Date:-
2/13/81 INSPECTION SITE:
_ INSPECTOR:-
I DATES OF INSPECTION _/ J _ to j _ /
i i
INSPECTION AREA ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS 1.1.7 Where a Certificate of Conformance (C0C) is to be used for acceptance in lieu of some or alli i.
final conformance records, do the specifications ;
fcr the C0C document require the following N
information to be included in the C0C:
1.1.7.1 Identification of the purchased material t
er item (reference to P0 or procurement document l
1sacceptable)?
1 1.1.7.2 Identification of specific requirements met (via list or reference to procurement document)?
1.1.7.3 Identification of procurement require-5 ments not met. If any?
1.1.7.4 Signature of an appropriate member of supplier's QA function?
1.1.7.5 Identification of procedures or QA program to be followed for filling out, review and approval of certificates?
1 1.1.7.6 Receiving inspection as the means to i
determine that purchaser / agent has verified by audit (or source verification) the validity /
{-
effectiveness of the suppliers C0C system?
1.1.8 When required (e.g. for complex engineeredcomponents)inadditiontotheC0C, was any source verification relative to acceptance i
cf the item specified and/or perfonned?
e
~
~~
7 2- -....
3
+' '
\\,, )
,y N. *,
TI 2512/07 Appendix 6 CONSTRUCTION TEAM INSPECTION CHECRI.ISTPa of 6 i
GENERAL. INSPECTION AREA:
p, g
PROCUREENT CONTR0_t.S. S..ITE Date:s INSPECTOR:
2/ /ai INSPECTION SITE:
DATES OF INSPECTION _ / 1 to 1 h
INSPECTION AREA ACCEPfANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS i
1 31. 9 Was implementation for the protection, I
handling, control of procurement specifications and purchasing documents adequate?
i 1.2 Receiving Inspection 1.1.1 Are receiving inspection records available.?
4 Ara identified dit:repancies reviewed by QA and/or engineering, as appropriate, to assure proper disposition?
1.2.2 Are procurement document requirements for i
accceptance of the item by receiving inspection adequate?
(Factors such as safety significance anc 4hether the procurement relates to an engineered item or one of standard design (off the shelf) shouldbeconsidered.)
1.2.3 Is the documentation for certificates of
bnfermance adequate?
Where procurement Jo they include the following: documents do not require a COC from tha supplier.
U 1.2.3.1 Identification of the purchased material h
3r item (reference to P0 or procurement document.
if cn-hand, is acceptable)?
\\
l' 1.2.3.2 Identification of specified requirements l
to ha met (via list or reference to procurement jocument)?
1.2.3.3 Identification procurements not met, if iny?
_.g.....-
- 7 1
T! 2512/07 Appendix 6 CONSTRUCT 10N TEAM INSPECTION,CHECKI.!ST (v
Il GENERAL INSPECTION AREA: PROCUREMEili CONTROL 5 - SITE Date:s 2/13/u1 D
INSPECTION SITE:
_ INSPECTOR:-
DATES OF INSPECTION _f,,f _to j,_f l,
INSPECTION AREA A
E j
1.2.3.4 Signature of an appropriate member of,
suppliers QA function?-
1.2.3.5 Identification of procedures or QA.
program to be followed for. filling out review and approval of C0Cs?
1.2.3.6 Receiving inspection as the means to l
determine that purchaser / agent has vertfled by d
audit (or source verification) the validity /..
u
-i,
]
effectiveness of the supplier's COC system?
i 1.2.4 When source verification is spectfled for acceptance of an item in addition to a C0C, is the appropriate receiving inspection organization i
)
aware of the source verification results?
1 1.2. 5 Do material receiving inspection records 5
indicate compliance with acceptance requirements?
1.2.6 Are nonconfoming items properly tagged and segregated?
1.2.7 Does the procurement documentation show that the specific procurement requirements such as c des, standards, and other specifications, have i
been met for the purchased material or equipment?
I Also, have selected material and physical requirements in the procurement document been met' i
1.2.8 Has other documentation (e.g., test.
material and inspection data) presented with certificates of comp 1tance been reviewed by ttchnical personnel who are capable (through experience, education or training) to assure that components meet all spectfled safety-related s.
requirements? Do other vendor documentation (naterial, test, inspection, etc.) include rsquired data?
~ ~.
c.
x -
- -~
~,!
i s,,,'
(
TI 2512/07 Appendix 6 CONSTRUCTION TEAM INSPECTION CHECKLIST (a
e s
o. 1 GENERAL INSPECTION AREA: PROCUREMENT CONTROLS - SITE Date:s 2/13/81 t
~
l INSPECTION SITE:
INSPECTOR:-
DATES OF INSPECTION _ / J _to_ /_/
INSPECTION ARE/.
ACP NE FINDINGS L
1.2 9 In cases where the receiving inspection-function has identified a nonconformance which l relates to a deviation from specified requirements n3t previously identified on the C0C or other vendor supplied documentatinn, does the corrective action proposed include a need to re-audit the vendors system for preparation and issuance of a C0C7 Also, was the " deviation" subject to a Part 21 evaluation?
1.3 Storage ANSI N45.2.2 1.3.1 Are the work and QA/QC procedures established to conduct activities of storage-for safety-related items in Class A, B, C and D levels of storage adequate?
1.3.2 Do the facilities for storage of Class A ^
~
equipment have an environmentally controlled atmosphere and provisions to prevent animals (especially rodents) and birds from entering?
1.3.3 Are the facilities for Class B, C and D equipment storage satisfactory?
1.3.4 Is protection from damage during storage ad:quate?
1.3.5 Is testing equipment available and suit-able for intended use?
1.3.6 Are records of storage conditions being 3,
maintained as specified and are.they current?
Do the records reflect that the specified st:: rage conditions are being met?
___.c a
~
TI 2512/07 Appendix 6 CONSTRUCTION TEAM INSPECTION CHECKLIST Page 6 of 6 Reviiloii No.7 GENERAL INSPECTION AREA PROCUlt.EMEN(,9ETROLS - SITE Date:, 2/13/81 C
INSPECTION SITE:
INSPECTOR:-
DATES OF INSPECTION / 1 to_ f _ /
IllSI'ECT10ll AREA A
Pull E FillDillGS I 3.7 llave appropriate controls been imposed on g
. access to storage aress?
l I
i I
4 J.
y f* N
~
6.0 Pullman-Higgins (P-H) 6.1 Organization 6.1a1 Pullman-Higgins (P-H) is of the Pullman Powe~r Products Division (Williamsport, Pa. ) of Pullman, Inc.
P-H is responsible for field fabrication of piping systems to meet UE and C specifications and applicable ASME and B31.1 requirements.
$3B Inspection focused on P-H ASME pipe welding to verify system and personnel adequacy and to evaluate th(effectiveness implement of appnoved procedures by responsible personnel.
Included..La the
(
inspection was a review of the YAEC surveillance and auditing activities of P-H welding activities.
6.1 Areas Insp 5ptetSc. m areas inspected included filler metal controls, QC Insp,ection activities, interview of weldors and welding foremen, weldor training and per-formance qualification, QC weld monitoring, machine GTA butt, welding, ANI/P-H inter ace for weldor quali-fication and pipe welding, and control of austenitic stainless steel welding to avoid sensitization.
Tours l
of the site were made to observe pipe welding and weldor i
i performance qualification testing.
The inspector reviewed procedures and specifications for conformance to regulatory rqquirements and to determine their effectiveness in providing measures to control special processes.
5,3 Ftvdwo
.g41 web. % # au4.fW w m % L W w -
\\
6 Tha NRC Inspsetor 'ravicw2d tha walder parformance procedures used b P-H for 4o snper e. M ii.n7I,q w ne"weldorgalified ite A detailed analysis was% qua.1made of the
' sp t
['
,f ', ]
and off-site
(
g controls exercised in the maintenance of, identification during welding and evaluation of the test assemblies.
The NRC Inspector attended a typical indoctrination course where a recently qualified weldor is instructed to understand those portions of the Field Weld Process Sheet and the Weld Rod Stores Reauisition applicable
.to the weldor
, Pullman Power Prodtic,ts PH001 dated j
12/
1 Laocuctions for Weldors" is read to and with the weldor.
D
.A review was made of the P-H 6/21/82 Qualified Weldor Li,st which indicated that 95 of the cur. rent
+ 36[eldors[M)were qualified by' weldingpoff-
~
tassemblie[underP-HQCSupervision.
site All except 3 welded P-H Standard Welding Test SWT #1.
Weldors qualified off-site were trained and tested at UA Welding Schools at Seabrook, N. H.; Cleveland, Ohio; Terre Haute, Indiana; or Pasco, Washington.
All of the Seabrook, N.
H., test assemblies were radiographed by P-H at the Seabrook Site.
The disposition sheets for the RT are maintained with the ASME PQR document.
4 Currently (since 6'/82), weldors qualified'off site are photographed by the P-H QC Welding Inspector supervising the welding and the photographs are referred to at time of employment at the Seabrook Site.
4 ho Vlok Ab N i i
t, '
(,,$,1 3 evteuJ e{ D d W b bb The NRC Inspector discussed with P-H the lack of ff clarity in
. directions to the weldor provided by the welding parameter table which is Attachment ~5 to PH001 and which is issued by the Weld
~
Rod Issue Stations w3.th all filler metal.
P-H indicated changes would be made to the presentation of the GTAW parameters to provide more explicit information for the welding.of. consumable inssrts,and other GTAW welding.
Included with the proposed changes to PH001 would also be a review of th,e method of present;ing the GTA j
lian elec{nca l parameters in tlie WPS documents.
The NRC Inspector interviewed a number of weldors
'and welding. foremdn.to review information on their s
training, qualification testing, and unde'rstanding of the variables in'dicated in the ASME WPS documents.
2 Specific questions were aske
requirem
)
Ac6J uv. n,.
for accept'able oxygen level in purge, gag.
The P-H welding foremen and weldors have not been trained in the purpose and content of these documents that con-stitute the ASME WPS.
Both the P_H general welding specificatlons(e.g.,GWS-III)'andP-HWeldingPro-cedure Specifications (e.g., IT1 -III-1 -KI-12) are
~
needed to constitute the complete list of essential,
' non.-essential and supplementary essential variables required'by the ASME Code.
QW,100.1 and QW-200.1 indicate that the manufacturer or contractor shall 9
e
g 3
prepare written WPS documents to provide direction to the weldor while making welds to Code requirements.
Contrary to this requirement, the weldor cannot receive directions from the WP,S documents when neither the weldors nor the welding foremen who technically assist wekYS the weixts are instructed in the P-H GWS and dee. mute:4
P-H Welding Procedure Specification ~s Inspection p
indicated that these documents were physically avail-able for reference by the weldorp at the QC Welding Inspectors Stand,,but, as the weldors did not know of.the existence of these documents, they could not provide " directions to the weldor" as required by ASME Section III N'A 4133 9 and Sections IX' QW 100.1 and QW 200.1 (a) M DA WSM
M eG)k ' M -Ot e 2.b.A,e Q p a;%
Mew I4S*^Etd a
uue % mde a s
g#
h. vio\\w4b k ION b
.gy:l k et w L- =
O e
e 0
,n.
e, Welding Filler Metal Control Review GaiO A review was made of filler metal control system inelod m g.
GEtun initial indication of filler metal type on the P-H ISO drawing, storage of filler metal' at the Rod Issue Stations, issuance control measures and return of stubs and unused filler metal.
Personnel in the QA Engineering Process area and in Rod R'ooms #4 and #1 were interviewed to determine their understafnding of the control measures No violations in the filler metal control system were identified.
e i
O 8
e O
e e
6 e
8 e
G S
O S
e e
e O
9 9
e G
9 e
e O
e 9
e
,w-
~,..-...,
, _,...,... - _. -., ~., -
,n
\\
'p.3 k Machina Orbiting GTA Butt Welding
{
+be The NRC Inspector reviewed ttle status of the sub-ject welding activities previously reported in combined reports 50-W3/81-07; 50-4W/81-06 and report 50-W3/81-13 The following welds have been completed and m.it ASME radiographic soundness requirements in the as-welded condition as of the dates indicated:
RC-8-01, F 0101 3/24/82 F 0102 3/24/82 F 0103 3/17/82 RC-5-01, F 0101 4/2/82.
F 0102 3/29/82 F 0103 3/29/82 RC-2-01, F 0101 4/19/82 F 0102 4/21 /8 2 F 0103
/12/82 RC-11-01,F 0102 28/82 F 0103 23/82
- - F 0104 4/30/82 These welds will be re-radiographed for final ASME acceptance following ISI grinding.'
uo vi olgh % ida~d 6M S
e e
G 9
e e
e w
, ~
-,o---w.----
,m m--
e,
o 6.3.5 AuthoriEed Nuclear Inspector (ANI) Interface with P-H The inspector interviewed three Royal Insurance Co ANI's and their, supervisor to review their actitities in weldor qualification, routine weld hold point inspections, and to solicit information on any specific areas of concern for the quality of pipe welds currently being produced.
The ANI's provide routine unannounced surveillance inspection.of the P-H Site Training and Qualification Test Shop.
They insure that the stencil numbers assigned are not duplication of existing stencils.
They, check union card identification, but do not specifically verify the weldor's picture badge identification.
They check the test assemblies for permananii fixturing and proper stenciled identification of test assemblies.
The ANI follows NCA 5254 and ANSI N 626.2 - 1976 Paragraph 4 2.9.
The ANI's have questioned the qualifications and called for requalification testing of three weldors during erection of the Seabrook Site.
The inspector checked 6 ANI interoffice memoranda that indicated ANI review of WPS and PQR documents and the ANI chronological log lists for this activity dated 6/9/8,0 and 6/18/82.
A cursory review of the ANI log entries was made by the inspector.
%s%
hMdM4 gg $
p'amx S \\c$ %
A4
\\
pft MM u a p p dlhe A m & e -
aW s
m
% gh qu Me a
. w ad m a U + A. 4
2 tu # A,
=
t
\\
~~
t 6 3.6 Review of Audits of P-H Welding Activities The inspector reviewed YAEC weekly survie11ance reports numbers 163 to 175 for the period 2/27/82 to 5/22/82 and interviewed the YAEC personnel performing the surveillance.
A weekly report activity report is made and YAEC-Framingham is informally kept up to date witbitthe surveillance information.
The inspector reviewed YAEC Audit Reports SA 598CSao3 (November 21.i., 25,1981 December 3,8 a 30, 1981 - January 6. 7. & 19,1982) and SA 596CS202 (March 8-10,1982). Audit Report SA $98CS203 indicated as one of the areas of concern that P H was not conducting weld monitoring in compliance with their QA Procedure Requirements stated in Document X-10 paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, and 5 3.
Paragraph 5.2 requires monitoring each weldor at a minimum of once every three months (which is a relaxation of a previous re,quirem6nt for monthly
'Eunkn m "
T W C A A 4 4 Q* N Y 3'.
_p,
h' * '-
monitorin ib b 4 D h +4
~
}
'r. *.
~
n u
p
, y"I ? '; 5 -,,.
B 4
4
.v*
a I
e
m....,.. -. - -..,.,
,,m.r_
6.3 6 Review of Audits of P-H Welding Activities Ths inspe'ctor reviewed YAEC weekly surviellance
~
reports numbers 163 to 175 for the period 2/27/82 to 5/22/82 and interviewed the YAEC personnel performing the surveillance.
A weekly report activity report is made and YAEC-Framingham is informally kept up to date withitthe surveillance information.
The inspector reviewed YAEC Audit Reports SA 598CS203 (November 214., 25, 1981 - December 3,8 & 30, 1981 - January 6
7. & 19,1982) and SA 596CS202 (March 8-10,1982). Audit Report SA 598CS203 indicated as one of the areas of concern that P H was not conducting weld monitoring in compliance with their QA Procedure Requirements stated in Document X-10 paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.
Paragraph 5.2 r,equires monitoring each weldor at a minimum of once every three months (which is a relaxation of a previous re i
6 t for monthly monitoring)brJ3Mn.er+1ga4furemnWC bat 4E 'Q k i-4 WNt444M M 3. _,
... m.-p.-,
M{%
C.
as
-a,
f t,
,4 i
e 4
O y
,-r-.
,w-r
%e-
chowing discrepancies signed off as reviewed with no comment, (2) incomplete and questionable record entries, (3) travel speed, T-am erage and voltage outside the range of the WPS.
commendations from this review include improved training in the requirmments of Procedure X-10 end revisions to the WPS documents to broaden the paramenter ranges.
The NRC inspec. tor i
requested that a review be made of the effect of changes in joulian heat input ranges on notch toughness require-mants and sensitization (where applicable) and to generally review the clarity of parameter tables for consumable insirt $ fusion and GTAW.
(As further stated in paragraph 6.3.1).
a e
o
%wgye w.awu% M c(,, M AeAvMdo oeA e % %
p._ w t u,e u k Q, u.
A= m ^ ^ *$
WQ Auew hko.
r w % g # w w waaw m, y% v, w% \\;
hy@l h M i
to cca se
~
l w---
.,w--,
,,_g-----,_-,-.-w-ym
_,.9,
,--____,--.9.
-..-s,,
--c-
-4
1--
,e b i1 i1
,,._b
k'_
_.A.C M N 7
6 h k ga A u o! % h ac3s
. w we e\\ ch
%A-,e S
wde uuc~4 te.-% q 6 4 haAg..
T-4 M 'u e
a~A umn 43 04 th 4# o fg. J2-A A hsut. catu.4~3 y
MD I
m M.I m ov e.
h A p er-tt x tt 7 ~ q & g 4 x-u At b b M M
.geK1 a I
n am &+m w nd
~
LA ghcdAd v Mtito
<uace hp g,h> pes b W u.s%m, %
Qi, s weaJ ae I
So J to W warg gh wau em u m ma L
,Wj n % y hem t a4v cw q w 5 4 % y m s-d he y cu k w hQ %s pu wh w
wA. % gl'J 4 %
hu i-M4y%MkWalG!a k %
s&,
JA.
%su Taa 6 { yw W 9 Wan_4 m
s
=*-4.
'-4-w 4
g-4 b
b o
e
9 w
kw a % % ** Q1 i~L wx
W h h,.$e~- ms w wu
. M na+
.M o u$ 2+%
J W "A 2 %
aw wed M q R m%
g aD c
m-h O.L Qll
_0 Q
s b %$
M u s t % ?-8-- w 4 m, N\\tc* e smd YA M W
&c@kh, 6
1 9
f, O, Q tt eItl7 As><<* L 3I Ot1MI19'b' 3 lel F.<b/ri Jeevile%,
y p/ jf,, j),,,,,j,,y [pfgjj) g,'f h<!
ennIl reifm.idil'4
/,e yua/,1,,.,,a,,,,,,-(pgj I'! de/ya/<d' W erk M s % w/ m J,,.;,j,.,,,,/,4,1v b S h 9A fny+~<
h 44ee dk4 st cJric I
%f~y (Y4s-c), PSx // 7"'/'t'$' l y!?" !?,4
+h e o payre by K yaarlett 0A Smiedia, y
Atf rhi h V4sc, y p,,te,9, y g - yem.<,J m J b, repre/cu /,Ji~
oi Heeheyi
.aJ4 y'sec y
~cece selec/sJ anus,1 y4e e, c4c4rr -,< d sda m b-chrs 3.1.1.
yMc lui < niinaJ <<>pmisb '!<'h or ne I"<
l'"'l' m aI< at A ~ l* y '{l Y & ?if,'?I<iv-o1 9 A n + a c. y sinee #cr ~
are Lon i I - q u,,t,'l y cminI (ec) y ed[
s.4enir d or f.r his a elib,' int ni ;1 ths'leL Eyihrer'.s m) Cm 7jyac l<rJ,, /n cy(cieac), E Zm riracG // wye, $< eec,,ainy, aifeelire od.r M ye.
Jevei 2. - Led //o ue G y'sec m,j/
a<J Ullfu pai- % ed 1,7 Laacl l arymi2al&u
~1ly 05 sc m eiu i( ~ J strucJun/ a&nio
<u C'
$.D lll l'$'$fi{
f/l$$&
l've'l $
- A< k /.s by Y4EC m ac/su~o'lles o f Ees'vt l m d Ki bet 2 u p,,'z a li k u.] y eac4 i
Le**cf f Nd '2~
14btsi h/Clc7oI gcln,e[hth/
b
~
[
$'5 C'
M' s
\\
\\
yerfw ~<d by
/Leir arym:2.a?/ dis, 1
NGh.+
my an w wnu
$.s
ii-n c
,s a 9,ly,',;%,up k
Gewpl 1er -W dieechk o /
tI~ y
~
e lo H
yer, Cm ikc/tk q A
[94 M) irr 44. Yk&c "7T,dc g,<c e, y,go s,z
= = g = w y+ y'] cec ad&
q&
n
??
w<f<<%d17 ad;/ ri refirhiv y A /4 QM
~1 amyneL p. A wfnk a frie, v4 GPt h rec k s rc{,,p, m,
p p M i.F 4g
~ ~. -
f hfstrMCr
' WY l'1-
$h Mtf n ia n t k & n d f"J " l-pk vue h
auf y'A Y YkDpt sc sPsvev;// o sd G&
+4e d i~c/&
7,uy, m r,le, eder faett eA q
of a fvjerth&,<b.+/ All OA(O QS A MA ecf rk k + th, c,ayrah t/~<yr, ac/04,%&w
$"*l' Y Anar~cc (R.t QA] +ktwy4 14 dwp~,- fgnh
~
QA.
5 e
,e O
O
~
~
~~
---m
"*. hew 4 1995_
'**e-wm,,
Wee
-e%,
3-2 drer/ Init, clcl 21
,:,qW 11a issy echs mchcIsd YAEc ad,/
s,~<<% ce y,,yrm,,j as a.r,-,,th,1<< ~/
a mi q c p,,y,,.,<.s, g k,
,; ; q,,p n ai,,Jc A
o b!'r*'s W
.s fx fut o I emr/rwc h ~ s1 at-lwr //
cmJlWm o f g, n. et<,
n. i ip oc le reau:.-,l ar,%
k Fr eac4 yroytm a,., J re ce /<mi,- i,1 l,<<ike / u,aye - / m.f
~
f
IA iel f
& scleele J 9A (ersee/; m1 nati -e/ sefuk/
d oce m lr.
Poliedt mJ froce ef<res w,re revu;< <d y ratry,cp,)< m Ar..r(<ais?/,1 de c,,, ta -.ac 4
g n,,>< a ta i.a,<.,1~ u,e a, espc,,,.aa4si p
g a a r u,.,,,; s. c n ;. u,
~ i w, w,. t,,c i,, a ;
m,yc m J c-p. /,/ p./Ny ac/>.hk unn
~1 HAe-eL, p~,m /- ik fr<vi-i d a w iseJ
.+6 >~
9 r uy,,, i ti/,f, a u,/dre:/y ~<1 s., <<7 emf !"ff th) Inl"- "I'"'Ni' b.14 5-nil, M i,~, (<a-m/p d n,% olirr 6mheI<r'l sta f,Q; mi p< bf~ ^I"' Ar "I'''''"
mf sJ-mIr <kr.i; exy,,,,:a,,,,,s,ei,in a b;;<,4 /r<ATv;
~
DHrr u, k vis.-i d & c cri f i < ~7emA s.<jfel,' poc.<m //
l*rrJ f '*NI' ~ ' ' * ;lel m< M nJ s.<wntha 'e's $4 d</?, to s
en-.i p i.nl..i, ~ g,1, n,.eearJi o f es es c h s e etkis,;
t' ~ ~<
~ c tw o
Q
' % = 3.. ! !,.54 n! :, v<yrrfr k "'f'""O #
1
=l ':
e %
rec,vli./ i1,ye ~ h in~d'7' l
f e
1 i
. = - - -
-m-
3. 3 F i n ct m,d S,
p 3.3.I v', la h m.s y;7% gggiar~~ M k'!$nif echr revte*s fl lretriiny md ycse/&$r,cerltm
~
teorh af.selecIed
,riorne/ ey<yned' b & UEL C y
Field g 4 c,wf, k<cedi, /
+,n
,, j, _,e-re:. id,
.cer-llSi<l as yaat< C&,1 Ov L<a! t 5 4
,t n a,,c Sarveillmce. Jbeu e r, 4 la. corIc'lica./cs,' did noS aeF1 a M/ wkiet Iby
7"5'N I den ia'ly
.ga.
4
$o fathy w J.< r v st ll51/~<,
Tl1 M CM WY N as d
%(ynle
% d-J N.. X-3,"na<l3r'c</ti>
car b '$rc a fd, oO twpe G,Teihb & Mu?'E"*
L fern n e t, saeM
2. v.c Aict., Ma ni & 7 e W i s n e f S 4 d / b e $ c e w lc d I n fK< Ilk U *bS *[ b, iseG<J.?y K.;dlie Ay affafnil< Ar m
0 ok e~f yee:
-Qcpllies ya. Jet Idb("lk"'~
1 nu t, < aus
,i % en o, senh, o, enf"
wh<n ry&ai % F ae G-1iu a $ c l & y u ~ /< /
0' 7
y agn ynkIr jncaJaic/ -v1 a ec~j "M I
j y <a << pal < 1b ace el-
,74 pau fa ec law- %e sl?t-M-t8 V4 t'/P '-o G-
) L p,'
i n
~
j ).]. x Wahr.rht hilalkhm fpnLns.
Dar,4 4Le sile Mr & wfec U obtr>~r 1 41-- Flc 42.Sur!Jl1r^f' V < l< r s l,( i ok i la lle l L n a t/.,, /
oui bw(dlay h < J him dujined in sn l o c s l1 0 U t o ' '_ b m r*acA e
4 reiZ1fn eiy.1 6 f,
fryi7.t, rfac< /r(" NI"'
m J n m,c Le/unes iniIrwe4;ar win wi%'I 4 4
ele {er nikg.
Ma s'estallbh er vib!W>1l1 ML
eny b <<". ""7-a bcujicJ uil4 0
1 C-in< ((w ws 9 741 - F - 10 t L 7 L
.16 {es JLJ wa/a,.i4f a 4,b< }ac</od I&N h#W Ven rJ C.,-
her re m Try c1 &. & " f m b j Id>
m ~ b -rf*r m;/1s h ~b c l y o I o
'n +a Ne fure<r TarMeck,u/
ikth cK2 win ava,'falky
~
g*
n '*'Im04 6' 4ba als k o i to cep so, g yyen t& s,
[n'leriM Z Ad4 reywire/
Mah ae hbsl!N d
d et h %
7a d. % t be y,lscrIlich 17 eff f p r, c eb re.s e
4 3
i i
i i
' ~ - ~ C' n.,
3,3,1
$synWlcm/ 'OSofert/etltbJ 2 1. 3..I
_ W ee lc H e rf The i
relW~ fevtew'I Scleclcf VAE C Sl lP QA survdi/m.cs refirft m J w.,,(d ref e b y
ol sered /Imcr ds<r eb J~ ary.fM- /, J n e ITF1 y rc y tril.
F.sservdil cuce oI klI' ~
.Th ~f^f-P,eiew r e4.l
-r e.*,'
(P-ID J
m,J de (<<,ieu v e' Wj7 11 1 ware ee-ce~<J.
y Idrule'ffr/ m !L - Sete ref a4) in (N"NN j
wer<
w&el h he skr+~n m
vi#
s'r,fe m bc.m e
(ro e e r/
sb se f1.i.?l%
wcflor Kr#
b d tIclo/tl l
re c <<-Js &
JUcwsitl>v w44 YAEC e<rrecIek ec {c mi la/cen hevedM*
no r<Ie Fe'F sk de fdienciht.
rik.
Tk i t/f ecltv revikt d VAE c atilsof,i o /
S tct n 1. A pri (, l # L on d f-Y durt"1 June
+k f.Ilwi s '
idowM sel
, gt
A ude I A. ss a t es ist %,,E 17 4lm d e S' U'"',
i m f e d I'**
l 1Je,.FiCau i,,Jd J <*'y w </eer ua.!i.,
I
~
I'-g q A ymem, p<fe(d uols>in /
b h (dea </<lir.Ily reje/u%k cleJc'ctiary a/t.
5 e
sm.eIIfmee nd f-Il Gtler~/ ae4h,-
YAE c v.,, w
./
j +>.1 hl re e m m de.J
'"
c r
e ~f re h en tr've A,d o e frida /iLO es/<//*t*wh t
is
s. asuial raprv u Li u -.w'.,,,vT -lp a h ~ rn i
l f r= y re t4 s1 l
. c <> y <> d e 7.<y7tr$ I, 4 St tl is reyubed -
7
.=::
i ful & Ao Jf s 73 c 5 t tt, d v, k,- ttH - Jav e9 I9M_ ---
rk.
W Ilewbe'/(e/ fark g,p, hd cfei, f,.af,,y,,/
A le //er te e twwn Jed m ygr a 4 1ltiolv<~'d k
f-lh b aum m n efGeta.1e maai n + minf*/
}gk QA porm-Auld-No..rA ste c3 zosi )Y,, l 19tl ~ lla,la'fal t
l ~ewly defari-cas.
riu anj;;
, y,,, t, tau k
(rt A*'y arra/o S cacern: ma /s af idmh'In=l'*
mJ v e L l u s irr in.r. T 4 le I/< r w is o.rf.r /ed h l-9-ll m ~ y c m A ss a.i /<s/ /11~ detI'"'%'
t A m_ t c<~ < <.%, a, m m 4. a,,,,,,,2 5<'fm/nby f-Hk We e,< Ja'/.s & a aef.J/e k
+= c crreeFa r a e % k n T.<.uv i u u w/ defelimeus l
b4
.1 1 da'J uol-aclewledyr ow!/ml
,, j,,'
N r*g W MPvt <$ g. htN19,f W f(YfgC/
("[
'O
'** A "" ' -
l r"[<///,&.e IO.I, leas, Ouri 4 +k f" 4 'p*j""
\\.
I n-r-n cm tuchJ fe ve aLGlehut uJ&
wr,e ol-wree W<
aehe k. In D s'd. eA d'0'I"*"
i 6,;g ecyreeleI arecyI<&y, in a e aic, ua l
w.,,e e<> grr.,4.r y p r / wLi ayain vec n*** L
/acg,vu j
4w.<st.'4 h. fq-/ c<rg4 <ya c ~ 4<c/< l t
j m eet ir et.
Y= : -. - J P-H ~~ ye m l- "-->
%1 I,,
b< sua c 11ad ly se </olue J 14 m ouIdiyaled b e u ~ ca-14 /<.a.ita si2,91,1.&J,tA.snsnatu Weit CM TIdired' l* be traI,*$ m J u nek myeJ, t
j e
+w ew------m-
-+v we-ww-
-y-
O A
i ifecW revu'~el rewh of %dc c -
,,- 4 ec h si 4alec, b
Y45c I, egr,<c /
14 p-H m,nya,,F l
y m1 fry r m u /ic de {d su tik jdeak'fG/ elk!5 rveillmcc acJ eqJrVr, rk I?Il5.7 'c'k'h l
y'isee su wen cr ~ <:r ee k pe ute k,Qantily Arturawe 6c'*I""I Y45C laa, 4,4 h Ai rk february lYPl. ref tr$ di/c w//S N
~
f n
/- ~A14AA locic of f-g o. c<y(ry,,,le say,,k led &
~#
f
%Ia mactry kJ &arn rek h " #'"
V<cc fnn Jse/- o 4 e udfly Jrre ute r
k reivin +4a ~ dn 74 aetun reyaciej l
dIrcurr< d }l YU *I 8(n(,l9FL re P-fl Cwf nlr _gy cdh Yksc wed17 rcj r-li k in w p m.t, n
<<,,,rti
l-J ~ ~ <y !< 't !L, J m any u,19 FL, r/re4 tr, i 9 FL N d n
J n. wp&d
!!*y *qjf t,l,fununeJ*-ek Jy Vi m'm ye 4 acJ.icu.s, n p a capns4 j
bWeie r 1 - u,,e /,9 -, M P-t/ siVe ia myed e u carniry -het< J +,kl
~ 1 (.ir'/ <k w'" k'^'
y
= c %,
l4 an a ( bwvv/-
0 K<flrrly Q f
{1s wtileb'*fe Ju e<//eJ Jung 1
p.H yr,y nu 4neu -as
}
i4 r =. X y a J m.< ary n, i m.,
o[ rb aab
$ tY irscebl w sik f $ l" lc f
~
{a als earcethe ac k L, ei a&caud. sie m.t
\\
l em cer 11 -o-e i a ed'421 as wat.t swr >,Ihri% ~d N ea h'Cita hin, y.Q 3 j,, fed 4Ml GA m levas /
-u
'c i+YAg c [,f4 a h p/ '
a6 a.a i
4r - " e etw <i< g tri w /,
'~
o s
a a < 1- ~,,,,~, n ro s,, a a u p.,
0 ducette1 g
P-I[ Je /c 2iem c As m J VASC $kl N IHJfC L
$*o olhth
+ b k c-w,r e c d e k,., g y g g c,g, u y,. Q,.
frdlemj I, < J lo ren idea lilfr d b, k'AEC soh ya/ly f-IlthS"'I eimore/ as we ll 9A m a au J,,l y,'y 9stdIl0r3 d y r~ t n M o d - } 9fl os,s J cn u umsto *t/
0CC4///N1J ll4rc 4 Skrh y ff[g (_
isqetsjen& s*'t1 a w< cc., & ll e (,,Llemi m.t I,aL a 64~ /<1 b ofk'"
j c yy-(gl-g y'4 gy/g fry f-ll
^ ~ -
L'~'
^
I
/
/e gj l-- JiH Cr J**'" " ! f p N -i e. g n -
^
a r
.g I
j"'"
4.)oS.
._lvu<. A h,l'1P L,}l-e m*J r T
f.-en CorKJ, we (,l. & J.,y,Gy Q m 4 fo,.ia }.- [dP+tl5bIcult 14 w~erx 7 F l ll v *t m, / v e J m J m >~<
rkW e FAl'" A4 i
N*
la iscl[ o l-g dejue/e.rycevOI FarIw-c h
,.,, 2 a f e.(i N m ~s d h k !v r*I"
... ! - a; of. flu f~// O A-
.u 47 cle,he c ies seFei is a w,a4,1er/ o& Me YHc P ' 7'm -
(? coy <m Stre f j
3.3. 2. 2.
p.h n ae a !
yts e m:1.4 L j..v.==! "'O I' ::!c ;;:l-]
& A
. '. '. l. -u llk__ft-u ud c l., -
f dif et.lsr n., M,, A ga
'!J I'
Nsf ecle revNs.aeJ #L Y46C Qu f
TL
<qwi r fe/ec,/e] Qu.AVN & iN"',9 *
.f ttrveillo>< ce krsber.4-s rug,
^
e t'aclcd at.L pnum riv t(W'e A -
l+1lrtr/ te") werc r
n I
l were I
ref -1 J.revel thin-e/,e jel perimneI ra 14 ex Jc/ m g g, 4
I.
i
_.,-....y
- Iv.ltrouwcl 8'
y p;,,nn,lpicek1 6 L h~t<&Jle 'E M eir helels.m J w,4 y od I"b "'~'"
"f ~ " '
well "f'" A
"'I N 'W" di w er<.
a.< R l-ce f
.bqh J.
L/- LL W yidm f"I"""' '?I" h
p. Rece a < ja /igu
n. k~"#
o A A m. t m.
sI we SI en~d'"" n,i-c us;1er e k '" j ie hr1 t
z, g.g.a. caut< o f y,,N c uaa,t e
y<CM fid4*f it
..j
f. f,,jp1 i
V!
. I a"j'p n d sarceril,,
rb 7ullAde/m-w n y u tlIy F &
"tj 'eI1(k' arc y
KN f 7"' '
)
7 jronj SL,J le L3r 2,3 kccry afe
~
fl j
Ibse -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3a.3. 2.!..H n,, x 7. e u p g
~~
t5 WW reve em 1 pf,,t aye >um A jg,l,,L f
refgbs fy. j 9 y Q np-x,
(ta(gg g, et-i,s t.
l
% 3-H-3 ai< Jlld t w r ec h k a c h h, m.1 // a,
i h ~l a < L' led de.<ef, em }n / ac.h b s'Iat. Oui m A' L
d-l
_s4 Flo'c aceEli w,'it, y'4sc su~ay< mmA Jhcloid yrew A wp A/
ace.t %r.,, + w. t ~ ' au+ fLe
~
es FisA$~
o<1-aF
~
ura va.,, A o
ec. 7<-
i, a i
~
M my e onA 1,h, TLe scole o/ R.e aa< la'i.e 4 < J l'er" re/I'r cId ;
th
!9 M wl 19F-2.,
i[,
cyJa.,y. k of,),gh in (,y. m,// m
(
' T W w.l.
le.e e h m tr'c v l+t c hy-crev a{l CMlrai' VIt Sh sr % /
a i
yeay>-o>-1,4 '~ -__7 -' ': =:L[.. p ; ; ~,'4je-l o& M Q.A
(=~-
-. u l
l*
g & 4:=,w su; &,;/ a.. [ L. w S = $y m % e -u < a Wy.0 tm an-4 Ar m n IAI!i
--a,-~
n-
-_a a,
-n m
-,eas-
-e m
.-a,--
4 4
-,-- + _ _.
y a
m enu snu-9
^^
_ mee 6 N hM h "
m - "- - - -
,4 m
,gg,.
9
9 e
W s.
z-1r vr s c4 e - A 2 "
r-12 -se %af 4 e&g w 2.
/d WA J.2c4 f.a.ti^$aL. n MS *- LXhe,h
~
O I
O f
? $A) k.
A k E_! f
$8, a
km -A e444 4 ~B. e44,< a;%
P
%f l As,A eA+ pc. en$ef i
l I
i l
l
---..----,7 n,
n,
- ~ ' *
'E m
9 s
e i
f;eso s-a %nsa
}%e Mr fang
)
0 Fo u?
SM
/
f.
e
/ #
p ub UNITED STATES
+
?#
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[..
f,a nEGION I f
$31 PARK AVENUE e
,g
/
niNa'OP PRUS$1 A PENNSYLVANIA 1,408
[
JUN 0 41982 MEMORANDUM FOR:
F. J. Miraglia, Jr., Chief, Licensing Branch 3, NRR FROM:
R. W. Starostecki, Director, Division of Project and
}
Resident Programs
./
SUBJECT:
10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REGARDING THE FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS OFTHEPUBLICSERVICECOMPANYOFNEWHAMPSHIRE(PSNH) i This forwards Region I's plans relative to the petition filed on February 8, 1982 by the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League.
Region I will provide technical infomation to NRR to assist in the reply to the subject petition. This infomation will be provided after the Construction Assessment Team (CAT) inspection at Seabrook Station has been completed and documented. The CAT inspection is presently scheduled to begin on June 21 and end on July 2, 1982. Documentation of the findings of the inspection will be available during the week of July 19, 1982. Region I will supply infomation as requested in Mr. Grosso's March 26, 1982 memorandum by August 6,1982.
We foresee the scope of our input to include:
our assessment of the construction-Quality Assurance Program at Seabrook i~
the results of our review of the implementation of the QA program by the i
\\
T utility i
/ -- an evaluation of the quality controls implemented at the site sa-an analysis of quality control problems identified by the utility and i
4 the NRC to detemine trends and causal linkages among these problems If you have questions regarding our plans, do not hesitate to contact me.
t l
R. W. Staros ecki, % Director s
,l 0 Division of Project and Resident Programs cc:
s A. Grosso, ELD l
A. Cerne, SRI Seabrook
-4. Durr DETP,, RI L. Wheeler,NRR D. Eisenhut, NRR l
R A O V
Cl O.
lv V" U %v
.a w
-

ML20072T323: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 04:18, 15 December 2024

Contents

Text

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

ML20072T323: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 04:18, 15 December 2024

Text

Description:

Description:

Description:

Description:

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

Search