ML19351E766
| ML19351E766 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/05/1980 |
| From: | Barnes I, Ellershaw L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351E724 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900271 NUDOCS 8012190200 | |
| Download: ML19351E766 (18) | |
Text
l J
M O'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900271/30-01 Program No. 51400 Company:
Rosemount, Inc.
12001 W. 78th Street Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Inspection Cond ted: July 21-25, 1980 Inspectors:
d Q.tiah 4 L h-f@
L.lE.Ellershaw, Contractor Inspector Date ComponentsSection II Vendo Inspection Branch Approved by:
o Lt3 h
-8'N I. 1ernes, Chief Date
}y ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Summarv Inspection conducted July 21-25, 1980 (99900271/80-01)
Areas Inspected: Follow-up on 10 CFR 21 reports and other identified problem areas. The inspection involved 33 inspector hours on site.
Results:
In the areas inspected, no deviations from commitment were identified.
Two unresolved items were identified.
I f
l Unresolved Items:
There is a conflict between environmental and seismic qualitications of Model 1153A pressure transmitters and procurement documents.
(
(Details Section, paragraph E.1.a. ).
i There is a conflict between environmental and seismic qualifications of Model 1152 pressure transmitters and procurement documents.
(Details Section, paragraph C.1.d.(3)).
8012190300
2 DETAILS SECTION s2:epared by L. E. Ellershaw)
A.
Persons Contacted G. D. Anderson - Project QA Representative, Nuclear Operations (NO)
T. C. Anderson - Customer Data Coordinator
- 3. Berge - Sr. QA Representative, NO T. C. Christian - Project Coordinator R ' edtke - Supervisor, Engineering d
T. G. Jenneke - Project Administrator J. J. Juergens - Manager, QA, Industrial Operations (IC)
F. J. Oakley - Director, I0 C. I. Odegaard - Manager, N0 3.
Rosemount Model 510 DU Trip Calibration System 1.
Common Mode Failure of Two Switches a.
Introduction Rosemount Inc. (RMT) notified their customers of a potential defect or deviation, referencing iJ CFR 21, by letter dated October 12, 1979.
That letter was sent to the following customers:
Bechtel Power Corporation, Gaithersburg, MD; General Electric Co., San Jose, CA; Philadelphia Electric Co., Philadelphia, PA, and Rosenount AG, Zug, Switzerland. The nature of the defect was identified as a common ~ mode failure of two switches. Switch S1 determines the trip status light logic and is a non-essential component of the trip unit.
Switch S2 determines the trip out-put logic and is an essential component of the trip unit.
The j
malfunction of the switches appears as an open circuit, the l
result of which the trip output is no longer functional.
l-The general function of the 510 DU Unit is to monitor the cali-l brated trip points of pressure and temperature transmitters.
As a result of the notification, Bechtel and General Electric notified Mississippi Power & Light Company (MP&L) that certain 510 DU units were purchased for Grand Gulf Units 1 and 2.
MP&L in turn, notified the NRC.
I b.
Insoection Objectives The objectives of this inspection were to review the nature and scope of the reported deficiency and determine any generic implica tions.
i l
3 c.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
(1) Review of QA program requirements in Section 4.1 (Design Control) and 4.5 (Manufacturing Control) of Revision E of the QA ' tual.
(2) Evaluation of the identified problem with respect to current pr3 gram requirements.
(3) Verification that RMT had taken action to correct the identified defective units.
(4) Discussion with RMT management oa actions that had been taken to determine the nature and scope of the identified problem.
(5) Review of the results of these actions and the documented measures that had been implemented to preclude recurrence of similar problems.
d.
Findings (1) There were no deviations from commitment or unresolved items identified.
(2) The cause of the defect was determined to be process related.
The switch installation was performed using a hand solder-l ing process.
RMT, in an attempt to facilitate production, changed to a flow soldering process. This change occurred in late 1977 and remained in place through 1978.
Shortly after the process change, an abnormally high reject rate developed during acceptance testing of the completed units at RMT. Those units which failed acceptance testing, were repaired by installing new swtiches, but using the j
hand soldering process.
It is apparent that RMT did not have an effective trend analysis program relative to non-conformances or rejected items, because the swtiches continued to be. installed using the flow solder process.
Compounding this problem was the fact that once RMT realized the process change was detrimental, it was also determined that time was a factor, in that units having successfully passed acceptance testing started to exhibit problems /
failures after being shipped to customers.
4 A " hold" was placed on production while RMT evaluated the problem. The flow soldering process was changed back to the hand soldering process. A review of travelers allowed RMT to establish which units had been flow soldered. The serial numbers involved, were 3001 through 4203.
Knowing the serial numbers allowed RMT to identify the customers who had received units which passed acceptance testing, thus allowing notification.
RMT's corrective action was to replace both swtiches for the trip calibration units returned by the customers, and to perform functional testing.
The units were then returned to the respective customers. Repairs have been completed on all units except for those shipped to General Electric (GE).
GE is now returning the identified units for repair.
The action taken to prevent recurrence, was the establish-ment and implementation of procedures which require Manu-facturing Engineering and Quality Assurance to review and approve any process changes prior to the actual change.
In addition, a trend analysis program was' established which should preclude the continued manufacturing of items exhibiting the same nonconformity.
2.
Increased Current Requirements a.
Introduction 1
RMT notified their customers of an identified problem, referencing 10 CFR 21, by letter dated August 6, 1979. That letter was sent to the following customers:
Bechtel. Power Corp., Gaithersburg, MD; General Electric Co., Daytona Beach, Florida; Lompoc, CA; and San Jose, CA; Reliance Electric Co., Stone Mountain, GA; Philadelphia Electric o.,
Philadelphia, PA; Pacific Gas and Electric Co., San Francisco, JA; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., Vernon, VT:
l Nebraska Public Power District, Brownville, NB; Arthur D. Little j
Inc., Cambridge, MA; Carolina Power & Light Co. c/o United Engineers l
& Constructors Inc., Philadelphia, PA., and Rosemount AG, Zug, Switzerland.
l f
The problem is related to increased current requirements.
The maxi-mum current drain for Model 510 DU master and slave trip units l
exceeds the previous RMT specified values. The current required by the gross fail circuitry was not considered in the original product specification.
l l
I
5 b.
Inspection Objectives The objectives of this inspection were to verify the nature and scope of the reported deficiency and determine any generic impli-Cations.
c.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
(1) Review of QA program requirements in Section 4.1 (Design Control) of Revision E of the QA Manual.
(2) Evaluation of the identified problem with respect to current program requirements.
(3) Verification that RMT had taken action to correct the identi-fied, defective units.
(4) Discussion with RMT management on actions that had been taken to determine the nature and scope of the identified problem.
(5) Review the results of these actions and the documented mea-sures that had been implemented to preclude recurrence of similar problems.
d.
Findings (1) There were no deviations from commitment or unresolved items identified.
(2) Up until June 1979, the 510DU Units were manufactured by j
the Aerospace Group of Rosemount. The manufacturing and testing operations had been approved by the respective customers. The QC/QA functions were performed by the Aerospace Group.
Due to additional requirements imposed by RMT's customers, a decision was reached to transfer the manufacture and testing functions to the Nuclear Operations Group.
In addition, new test equipment was employed, which is capable
~~
of checking current drains of individual circuits.
The problem became known as a result of a design change due to a required increase in supply current necessary to operate an integrated circuit which is part of the negative voltage power supply. During verification of the design change, mes-surements showed a current drain by the gross fail circuitry.
6 The former specified current drain for the Master and Slave Trip Units was 105 mA and 90 mA, respectively.
The maximum current drain for the Master and Slave Trip Units has now been established as 230 mA and 215 mA, respectively. The new values were verified by actual measurements.
It was determined that all master and slave trip units, manufactured and shipped by RMT, are affected.
Customers using the Model 510 DU trip calibration units were advised to determine what adverse effects on the power sup-plies selected for use with these units might be, based upon the new values.
Customer responses indicated no adverse effects.
RMT has corrected the product specifications and instruction manual to reflect the new values.
3.
Silicon Core Rectifiers a.
Introduction RMT notified their customers by letter dated April 13, 1979, of a problem dealing with the silicon core rectifiers (SCR) used in the master and slave trip units of Model 510 DU trip calibration system.
The problem may affect the gross failure output function of both the master and slave trip units, in that when the gross failure output is energized and the unit is run through the preset trip point, the gross failure output may reset. A transient wave form on the 24 V line appears to get back to the SCR when the trip output changes state.
The transient may turn off the SCR which is used to latch the gross failure output. This is limited only to those SCRs with i
high holding currents.
The notified customers were: Bechtel Power Corp., Gaithersburg, MD; General Electric Company, Daytona Beach, Florida; Lompoc, CA.,
and San Jose, CA; Arthur D. Little Inc., Cambridge, MA; Carolina Power & Light Company, Southport, NC; United Engineers and Con-structors Inc., Philadelphia, PA; Nebraska Public Power District, Brownville, NB; Philadelphia Electric Co., Philadelphia, PA; and Pacific Gas & Electric Co., San Francisco, CA.
l Customers were advised to review their particular application of
~
l the gross failure output to determine if the resetting of the l
gross failure output is detrimental to the required operation.
7 c
b.
Inspection Objectives The objectives of this inspection were to verify the nature and scope of the reported deficiency and determine any generic impli-Cations.
c.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
(1) Review of QA program requirements in Section 4.2 (Purchasing) of Revision E of the QA Manual.
(2) Evaluation of the identified problem with respect to current program requirements.
(3) Verification that RMT had taken action to correct the identi-fied, defective units.
(4) Discussion with RMT management on actions that had been taken to determine the nature and scope of the identified problem.
(5) Review the results of these actions and the documented mea-sures that had been implemented to preclude recurrence of sinilar problems.
d.
Findings (1) There were no deviations from commitment or unresolved items identified.
(2) This problem was identified by a customer who had received 510 DU Units. After installation into panels, peculiar l
conditions were noted during calibration. RMT was notified and subsequently went to the customer's facilities to review the anomalies. The cause of the anocalies was traced to the SCR.
It was found that the SCRs met all functional requirements as required by design. The higher holding currents had not been a consideration, as something which might cause a prob-lem.
i l
The corrective action taken by RMT was to rewrite the procure-ment specification for the SCR, to ensure that SCRs with lower holding currents are used. All in-process units were subjected l
to additional testing to replace.those SCRs causing this con-I dition. Those customers determining a detrimental condition l
l
4 8
RMT performs a 100% receiving inspection to assure the SCRs meet the revised procurement specification.
C.
Rosemount Model 1152 Pressure Transmitter 1.
Input Pressures Over and Under the Calibrated Range Could Provide Normal Output Readings a.
Introduction RMT notified their customers (See Attachment A) by letter (10 CFR 21 report) dated March 14, 1980, with subsequent supplements one and two, of a potential defect in their Model 1152 Pressure Trans-mitters with Output Codes "A" or "D".
This pressure transmitter provides a specified linear output of 4 to 20 mA throughout the calibrated range of operation.
The output is not specified by RMT for pressures outside of the calibrated range of operation.
It was discovered that an output between 4 and 20 mA can occur with certain input pressures over and under the calibrated range.
RMT advised their customers to evaluate the safety system employing this transmitter to determine if an application problem exists.
If a problem does exist, then appropriate corrections to the safety systems should be implemented.
b.
Inspection Objectives The objectives of this inspection were to verify the nature and scope of the reported deficiency and determine any generic impli-Cations.
c.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
(1) Review of QA program requirements in Sectio t 4.6 (Final Inspection and Test) of Revision E of the QA Manual.
(2) Evaluation of the identified problem with respect to current program requirements.
(3) Verification that RMT had taken action to correct the identi-fied, defective units.
(4) Discussion with RMT management on actions that had been taken to determine the nature and scope of the identified problem
9 (5) Review the results of these actions and the documented mea-sures that had been implemented to preclude recurrence of similar problems.
d.
Findings (1) It was determined that the cause of this problem is inherent in the design.
Both conditions arise when the center dia-phragm of the pressure sensor bottoms out against either of the fixed capacitor plates.
In each case, the normal capaci-tance signal becomes a very high capacitance signal which affects the operation of the electronic circuit.
l RMT had not tested this transmitter in an overpressure or low pressure phase. The problem was discovered accidentally, during an internal product audit of final acceptance testing.
The test personnel did not adhere to the requirements of the test specification. They tested a transmitter in a pressure condition which was over the high limits specified in the pro-cedure.
It was noted, upon exceeding the input pressure level, that the mA output went beyond the 20 mA limit. This was expected to be the case. However, when the input pressure was increased such that it was equal to or greater than 140%
of the upper range limit, the mA output dropped back into the specified linear output range of 4 to 20 mA.
Based upon this finding, RMT tested the transmitter in an under pressure con-dition, and found that when the under pressure limit was exceeded by over 100% (negative direction), the same phenomena occured, in that the mA output came back within the 4-20 mA range.
It was further demonstrated that a return to specified pres-sures, after an over/under pressure condition occurence, the transmitter would return to its specified nA output.
If the maximum over/under pressure limits, as specified by RMT, were exceeded, the unit would be damaged and would not function properly.
RMT had developed and introduced a new pressure transmitter (Models 1153 A and B), which are being offered to customers, for replacement if needed.
It should be noted, that RMT stated the Model 1153A is qualified to IEEE 323-71 and IEEE 344-71, and Model 1153B is undergoing qualification testing to IEEE 323-74 and IEEE 344-75.
The major differences between the 1152 and 1153 models are:
no teflon is used in the 1153's; a different type oil is used in the 1153s, and there is an electronic housing design modification to the 1153s.
10 (2) Deviation From Commitment None.
(3) Unresolved Item General Electric Company placed the following purchase orders, including RMT and GE part numbers:
P.O.
RMT P/N GE P/N 282X8G55 1152DP4E 22T0280PS 169C8392P472203, Rev. 1 282R7763 1152GP7D22PB 169C8393P742203, Rev. 1 282R7F63 1152DP7D22PS 169C8391P742203, Rev. 1 A review of the GE drawings 169C8391, 169C8392, and 169C8393 showed the qualification specification to be 22A4477 " Class 12 Control and Isstrumentation Equipment." The specification at RMT is 22A4477, revision 0 dated December 29, 1975.
Paragraph 2.3 requires the use of IEEE 323-1974 and IEEE 344-1975 environ-mental and seismic qualifications.
RMT notified GE by letter dated October 8, 1976, that they anticipated difficulties in meeting IEEE 323-1974. GE sent 2 TWX to RMT on May 24, 1977, stating:
Subject Drawings (169C8391 through 8394) are qualified, per GEs Quality Assurance Program. Please release all P0s for manufacture.
It has not been determined how the Model 1152s were qualified to 323-1974.
RMT stated the Model 1152 with A or D outputs (designated by the eighth character in the RMT part number) is qualified to 323-71 and 344-75.
They further stated the E output model is not qualified to 323 and similarity to A or.D qualifies it to 344-75.
2.
Installation of Wrong Value Resistor I
a.
RMT notified their customers, by letter dated May 25, 1979, that a wrong value resistor (82k ohm) had been installed in Model 1152 pressure transmitters, Series T0280 and T0455, in place of the l
correct.value resistor (8.2k ohm). The customers are:
General Electric Co., San Jose, CA; Carolina Power & Light Co., Raleigh, l
NC; United Engineering & Constructors, Philedelphia, PA, and l
l i
l l
11 b.
Inspection Objectives The objectives of this inspection were to verify the nature and scope of the reported deficiency and determine any generic impli-C3tions.
c.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
(1) Review of QA program requirements in Section 4.12 (Document Control) of Revision E of the QA Manual.
(2) Evaluation of the identified problem with respect to current program requirements.
(3) Verification that RMT had taken action to correct the identi-fied, defective units.
(4) Discussion with RMT management on actions that bsd been taken to determine the nature and scope of the identified problem.
(5) Review the results of these actions and the documented measures that had been implemented to preclude recurrence of similar problems.
d.
Findings (1) There were no deviations from commitment or unresolved items identified.
(2) The pressure transmitters equipped with the 82 k ohm resistors, when exposed to gamma radiation, could provide a lower than normal output current as the process pressure approaches and reaches full scale pressure.
This decrease in output current occurs only when the pressure transmitter is exposed.to a total integrated dose of at least 7 MRads. Once the source is removed, the output current returns to its normal level.
The decrease in output current may be as much as 25% of the reading. The data was obtained from radiation qualification testing performed on four pressure transmitters, which was necessitated by a change in electronics. These pressure transmitters were equipped with the 82k ohm resistors.
The cause of this peoblem was the inadvertent elimination of the decimal point when the drawing for this part was revised.
The error was not detected when the documentation
12 was reviewed by engineering and quality assurance.
Testing showed, that without the radiation, the change in resistors would not affect the function of thc transmitter.
RMT's corrective action was to retrofit all the pressure transmitters with the correct resistors as deemed by the customers, after their review. At the time of this inspec-tion, all customers except General Electric Co., had returned the transmitters for retrofit.
GE has returned approximately 5C% of the 305 identified trarsmitters.
The measures taken to prevent recurrence of similar problems include the use of new test equipment which verifies the schematics and all circuitry. Every board is 100% tested.
All changes on nuclear products, requires Engineering Change Approvals and Technical Change Approvals, which require an analysis of the change against the qualification of the pro-duct.
3.
Installation of Defective Capacitors a.
Introduction RMT notified their customers, by letter dated December 27, 1979, of a defective capacitor being installed in Pressure Transmiters, Models 1151 and 1152. The customers were United Engineers and Constructors, Philadelphia, PA; General Electric Co., San Jose, CA; and Rosemount AG, Zug, Switzerland.
The capacitors were a sole source item, purchased from Elpac Co rp.
b.
Inspection Objectives The objectives of this inspection were to verify the nature and scope of the reported deficiency and determine any generic impli-cations.
t c.
Method of Accomplishment i
The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
(1) Review of QA program requirements.in Section 4.1 (Design Control) of Revision E of the QA Manual.
(2) Evaluation of the identified problem with respect to current program requirements.
13 (3) Verification that RMT had taken action to correct the identified, defective units.
(4) Discussion with RMT management on actions that had been taken to determine the nature and scope of the identified problem.
(5) Review the results of these actions and the documented measures that had been implemented to preclude recurrence of similar problems.
d.
Findings (1) There were no deviations from commitment or unresolved items identified.
(2) The cause of this problem was process related during the manufacture of the capacitors at Elpac Corp.
The capa-citors are epoxy encapsulated and Elpac changed the method of encapsulating. This change allowed the forma-tion of voids in the epoxy which subsequently allowed moisture to enter the capacitors, particularly in the area of the leads. The process was further evaluated, resulting in modifications which eliminated the voids.
At the same time, RMT approved TRW, Inc. as another qualified capacitor supplier.
This problem was detected during testing of the Model 1152 pressure transmitters, which is conducted in the undampened condition at 200 F.
The previous testing consisted of room temperature testing. Therefore, any moisture trapped in voids did not affect the function of the capacitor.
When elevated temperature testing was performed at temper-atures above 175 F, the entrapped moisture was facced out of the voids, but not necessarily to the outside.
Some moisture was driven into the capacitors, which could reduce the output signal by as much as 10% of the true current.
RMT identified the specific lots of capacitors involved.
All components are identified by lot numbers wnich are
~~
recorded for each serialized transmitter, thus, RMT was able to identify each transmitter containing a defective capacitor.
It was further ascertained that no Model 1151s had been shipped to a customer with capacitors from the identified lots. The Model 1152s
14 involved, were limited to three series types:
T0280, T0400 and T0455. The corrective action by RMT was to recall the identified Model 1152s and replace the capacitors.
The actions taken to preclude recurrence of similar problems is that all capacitors are 100% tested at room and elevated temperatures.
In addition, process changes by RMTs suppliers must be approved by RMT prior to the change (s).
D.
Rosemount Model 1151 Pressure Transmitter There were two notifications made by RMT to their customers regarding the Model 1151, but the following should be noted.
The Model 1151 is a commercial off-the shelf pressure transmitter which is not qualified to Irrr standards.
It is manufactured by the Industrial Instrumentation Group of RMT, and is not governed by the Nuclear Operations Group Quality Assurance program.
1.
General Electric Co. reported a 10 CFR 21 report to the NRC on March 21, 1980, with concurrent notification to Mississippi Power and Light, regarding defective capacitors in RMT Model 1151 Pressure Transmitters.
It was determined that no Model 1151s with defective capscitors had been shipped from RMT. See paragraph C.3.d.(2) above.
2.
3echtel Power Corp. reported to NRC that RMT had notified them regarding the Model 1151 transmitter exhibiting an on-scale reading in the normal 4-20 mA range with an over range high or low input pressure.
This problem is identical to the Model 1152 transmitter.
See paragraph C.I.d.(1) above.
E.
Other Inspection Findings 1.
Unresolved Item a.
A review of Gilbert Associates, Inc., (GAI) procurement documents l
and specifications to RMT, for the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, l
Unit 1, revealed inconsistencies regarding the specific year of l
the IEEE standards to be used in qualifying the Model 1153 A
~~
Pressure Transmitter.
Revision 3 of sheet 107 to the Bill of Materials (BM), states,
~
" Qual.fication shall be based upon testing to IEEE 323-71 and 344-75.
l t
+
.~
15 Revision 2 of sheet 124 to the BM states that items designated as Electrical Safety Class 1E shall meet the requirements of ITFr 323-71 and 344-75.
In both cases where 344-75 is referenced, RMT crossed out the
-75 and wrote in -71 and also referenced a TWX sent by them to GAI on December 5, 1978, stating the 1153 A is qualified to 344-71.
GAI sent a letter to RMT on April 26, 1979, stating, "Your report RMT 3788, " Qualification Test Report For Rosemount Pressure Transmitter, Model 1153, Series A - have been reviewed for input, method and documentation. The result of the review indicates that the report meets the contractual requirements for V. C. Sammer Unit 1."
The problem is that report RMT 3788 documents the results of type testing which qualifies the 1153 Series A transmitter for Class EE service in Nuclear Power Generating Stations per the EEEE requirements to the 1971 level.
It could not be found where GAI had reduced the requirements of IEEE 344-75 to 344-71.
F.
Exit Interview A meeting was held at the conclusion of this inspection on July 25, 1980, with the following management representatives:
G. D. Anderson - Project QA Representative F. J. Oakley - Director, Industrial Operations C. J. Odegaard - Manager, Nuclear Operations R. A. Ward - Sr. V. P. Operations and Acting Director QA The scope and findings of this inspection were summarized.
Management acknowledged the statements by the inspector, relative to this inspection.
i I
l k
l i
, _ = - -
e 1152 PRESSURE TRANSMITTER ATTACHMENT A Alabama Power Detroit Edison Company P. O. Box 2641 General Construction - 033 Birmingham, AL 35203 3500 Mcaroe Street Monroe, MI 48161 Overseas Bechtel, Inc.
Cooper Energy Services Taiwan Power Co./ Steam Project North Sandusky Street 242-2 Roosevelt Road Section 3 Mount Vernon, OH 43050 Tapei, Taiwan Carolina Power and Light Company Toledo Edison P.O. Box 1551 300 Madison Avenue Raleigh, NC 27602 Toledo, OH 43652 Con Edison State of New York 4 Irving Place Power Authority New York, NY 10003 P. O. Box 41 Lycoming, NY 13093 4
Ohkura Rosemount Company Ltd.
C. V; Sales 3-20-8, Narita-Sishi 8665 Sheridan Drive Suginami-Ka Williamsville, NY 14221 Tokyo, Japan Rosemount Engineering Co. Ltd.
CVI Corporation Durban Road P. O. Box 2138 Bognor Regis Columbus, OH 43216 Sussex, England Virginia Electric and Power Company Commonwealth Edison Company Stone and Webster Engineering Corp.
P. O. Box 767 P. O. Box 38 Chicago, IL 60690
(
Mineral, VA 23117 r
'Rosemount - Los Angeles Area Metropolitan Edison Industrial Sales and Service P. O. Box 542 14148 Firestone Boulevard Reading, PA 19603 l
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Union Carbide Corporation Seadrift Plant
}
P.O. Box 186 77979 Port Lavaca, TX i
l
, _ - ~,.,.., -,, -
.. ~
o 2
Public Service Electric and Gas Rockwell Corporation Box 570 Energy System Group Newark, NJ 07101 8900 Desoto Avenue Canoga Park, CA 91304 Wescontrol, Inc.
Pacific Gas and Electric 4740 East 355 Street P. O. Box 7760 Willoughby, OH 44094 San Francisco, CA 94120 Bumstead-Wodiford Company Rosemount AG P. O. Box 448 Arbachstrasse 2 Woodinville, WA 98072 P. O. Box 232 CH-6340 Baar-In-Wil, Switzerland Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Babcock and Wilcox Edison Drive P. O. Box 1260 Augusta, ME 04578 Lynchburg, VA 24505 Omaha Public Power District Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company 836 Electric Building COL and Southern Ohio Electric Company Omaha, NB 68102 Dayton Power and Light Company i
P. O. Box 960 Cincinnati, OH 45201 Rosemount Instruments Ltd.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation 515 - 36th Avenue Southeast LRA Division Calgary, Alberta East Pittsburgh, PA 15112 T2G IW5 CANADA York Electro-Panel Control Company EG&G Idaho, Inc.
York County Industrial Park P. O. Box 1625 P.. O. Box 1702 Idaho Falls, ID 83401 York, PA 17405 Systems Control Corporation Morrison Construction Company P. O. Box 788 1834 Summer Street Iron Mountain, MI 49801 Hammond, IN 46320 Stone and Webster Engineering Corp.
Henry J. Kaiser 245 Summer Street P. O. Box 201 Boston, MA 02107 Moscow, OH 45153 Duke Power Jhrsey Central Power and Light
~~
P. O. Box 2178 Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Charlotte, NC 28242 Morristown, NJ 07960 Farr Company Arkansas Pcwer and Light P. O. Box 92187 Airport Station P. O. Box 551 Los Angeles, CA 90009 Little Rock, AR 72203
3 Yankee Atomic Electric Company Combustion Engineering P. O. Box 470 1000 Prospect Hill Road Westborough, ME 01531 Windsor, CT 06095 Frank Electric Corp.
General Electric P. O. Box 69 Nuclear Energy Division York, PA 17405 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, CA 92125 Parker - Hannifin Bechtel Power Corporation Power Unit Division P.O. Box 3965 930 Penn Avenue San Francisco, CA 94119 Orriille, OH 4467 MCC Powers Bechtel Power Corporation P. O. Box 263 P. O. Box 1000 Clover, SC 29710 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 Long Island Lighting Company South Carolina Electric and Gas Shoreham Document Control Room P. O. Box 764 175 East Old County Road Coluchia, SC Hicksville, Long Island, NY 11801 Florida Power and Light Company Bailey Controls Company P.O. Box 010950 P.O. Box 400 Miami, FL 33101 Wicklifie, OH 44092 i
I
~...
.