ML20041F466
| ML20041F466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/11/1982 |
| From: | Brinkley R, Hale C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041F455 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-999005289 NUDOCS 8203160527 | |
| Download: ML20041F466 (16) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ORGANIZATION:
EDS NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA I
ktruki INSPECTION INSPECTION l
NO.
99900528/82-01 DATE(S):
1/4-7/82 ON-SITE HOURS: 106 l
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS:
EDS Nuclear, Incorporated ATTN:
Mr. L. W. Cooley Vice President 220 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT:
Mr. R. A. Ayres, QA Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(415) 544-8050 PRINCIPAL P'.00UCT: Engineering Consultant Services NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: EDS Nuclear, Inc., has 55 contracts involving approxi-mately 49 domestic reactor units for consulting services such as engineering analysis, equipment qualification, licensing assistance, pipe support design, pipe whip analysis and protection design, piping analysis, seismic analysis, and safety analysis.
ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: ~7Z d. 73Md a /u /rz R. H. Brickley, D actor Systems Section (RSS)
Date OTHER INSPECTOR (S): D. G. Breaux, RSS I. T. Yin, RIII D. H. Dani Ison, RIII APPROVED BY:
f C_
d -/ /~h C. J.'H)lE, Chief, RSS Date INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A.
BASES:
B.
SCOPE:
This inspection was made as a result of:
(1) the issuance of a 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) report by Texas Utilities Generating Co., concerning the use of Operational Base Earthquake rather than Safe Shutdown Earthquake loads by EDS Nuclear, Inc., in developing tubing support criteria for Comanche b
Peak; and (2) a Licensee Event Report by Commonwealth Edison Co., concerning (Cont. on next page)
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY:
The information contained in paragraphs E.1 and E.3 is applicable to docket nos. 50-445 and 50-237.
DESICTATED ORIGINAL g
Certifica Ey h M '
8203160527 820218 PDR GA999 EECEDS 99905289 PDR 1
ORGANIZATION:
EDS NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECIl0N N0.:
99900528/81-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 2 of 4 SCOPE: (Cont.).
water hammer in the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) and component cooling service water systems (CCWS) at Dresden 2.
An assessment of the EDS QA program was made also.
A.
VIOLATIONS:
None B.
NONCONFORMANCES:
None C.
UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
None D.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
(Closed) Nonconformance (81-01):
Project Instructions contained conflicting design acceptance criteria, did not reflect the latest NRC accepted opera-bility stress limits, and did not provide guidance on use of the Blume Curves.
Project Instructions were revised to correct the procedural deficiencies identified.
E.
OTHER FINDINGS OR COMMENTS:
1.
Erroneous criteria used in calculating seismic loads on instrument tube supports (R. H. Brickley) - This item, reported to RIV via 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) Report by Texas Utilities Generating Co. (TUGCO), concerned I
the use of Operating Bases Earthquake (0BE) rather than Safe Shutdown l
Earthquake (SSE) loads by EDS Nuclear, Inc., in developing tubing support criteria for Comanche Peak (CPSES).
From the records examined at both EDS and CPSES, it was determined that l
the development of the tubing support criteria was conducted under a l
non-safety related TUGC0 purchase order (P0 No. CPD-0254 dated June 27, l
1979).
In fact, a TUGC0 memo of June 11, 1979, requesting that the purchase order be issued, stated, "
. not safety related."
Re-c portedly, the EDS engineer involved received verbal instructions from q
TUGC0 regarding these criteria and understood that they were to be used on miscellaneous tubing that were not safety related.
The statement made on the TUGC0 memo of June 11, 1979, and the lack of specific documented requirements for this project in either the TUGC0 or EDS l
files, appears to substantiate the engineer's understanding of the in-I tended application of these criteria.
It was further noted that neither lu CFR Part 50, Appendix B, nor 10 CFR Part 21 requirements were imposed by TUGC0 purchase order No. CPD-0254.
ORGANIZATION:
EDS NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION N0.
99900528/81-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 3 of 4 However, it should be noted that an EDS Job Requisition dated July 1, 1979, for Job No. 0210-010-241 (Tubing Support Criteria), required that these activities be conducted in accordance with their QA program.
An EDS Record of Conversation (ROC) dated March 23, 1981, between EDS and TUGC0 personnel was the first documented indication that a problem existed.
The telecon was made by EDS to discuss the fact that the TUSI Tubing Support Criteria provide support loads which are OBE and not SSE.
The criteria imply that the loads are SSE by the statement in Appendix A that the loads are " maximum expected loads" which are " generated in worst case conditions." This ROC indicated that the overall concern was that some supports and associated Hilti bolts may be underdesigned for the number of tubes allowed on some design typicals.
EDS suggested that they determine new design loads with SSE loads and telecopy them to TUGC0 so that they can review the design typicals and bolt loads.
On June 22-23, 1981, TUGC0 conducted their first pre-award survey of EDS and on July 8, 1981, issued purchase order no. CPF-594-S which classified the work as safety related and imposed the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, and 10 CFR Part 21.
Based on the above data, it is concluded that problem resulted from:
(1) informal / undocumented instructions to EDS regarding the requirements and intended application of the criteria; (2) an ambiguous statement in Appendix A of the loading criteria that led one to believe that they were based on SSE; and (3) a misapplication of the criteria on safety related tubing.
Corrective actions completed or in progress include issuance of Revision 2 of the Tubing Support Criteria clarifying Appendix A criteria, issuance of a new purchase order (CPF-594-5) providing specific criteria and requirements to EDS, and the evaluation and revision of support design at CPSES.
There were no violations, nonconformances, or unresolved items identi-fied in this area.
2.
QA Program Assessment (D. G. Breaux) - The EDS Nuclear Quality Assurance
(
Manual and applicable procedures were reviewed for consistency with 5
quality and technical commitments to codes, standards, regulations, and guides.
To determine that the necessary organization, facilities, and procedures for properly implementing the QA program to assure the pro-duction of a quality product, the inspector examined the following docu-ments: 10 engineer and auditor qualifications documentation, 3 internal
ORGANIZAT10N:
EDS NUCLEAR, INCORPORATED SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION N0.:
99900528/81-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 4 of 4 QA audits, 6 Engineering Design Reviews, 3 calculation files, 4 drawings with their subsequent revisions, 6 project QA files, and Records Center Storage input.
From this review the QA program is consistently defined and implemented with respect to the committed codes, standards, and guides.
3.
Water hammer problems in the HPCI and CCWS systems at Dresden 2 (I. T. Yin) - In review of CECO and EDS actions relative to the HPCI suspension system damage problems, the inspector determined:
a.
The added drain line was considered to be acceptable.
b.
System evaluation per IEB 79-14 evaluation appeared to be in order.
c.
Fatigue analysis did not include one additional damaged pipe rupture restraint on one damaged sway brace.
d.
Gap measurements for the pipe rupture restraints were not conducted in accordance with the established field inspection procedure.
In review of CECO and EDS actions relative to the CCWS suspension system damage problems, the following items were identified:
a.
Excessive gap openings were observed at the seismic restraints.
EDS analysis modeled these restraints as rigid members without justification of the effects of mechanical loss of motion during vibratory conditions.
b.
Fatigue analysis was in the preparation stage.
The inspector commented that: (1) methodology was considered to be correct; (2) all failure conditions had not been included in the analysis; and (3) failure mode and bolt load assumptions were not considered to be conservative.
c.
Fluid dynamic analysis will be performed to determine the effects of check valve slamming that could have caused one restraint failure in the system.
NOTE:
The concerns identified above will provide the bases for l
findings in a RIII report to the licensee, CECO (Report Nos.
l 50-237/82-01, 50-249/82-01).
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
1 ATTENDANCE LIST i
COMPANY: E DS NoclE Arz. Incorecori[sg DOCKET NO.994uggy g2.-ol Date:
i/7/72.
l l Pre-Inspectica Conference @ Past Inspection Cor.feren:
~
(Please N AME mense P-ind TITLE (Please Prind ORGANIZATION Pri. t)
R W.T5rcickles Ysuirt Emineerz axe me re D. C,.TSTEEA L)X SEAC. OTL En s*t NEEE NEC IfGroH W I. T. Yiw BeActon. Ls.oecloe NRC hion v D. H. dan ne law n Chid,Mdemn/s l&xEssEs NRC boon K 1.R kc0 mas 0rp. (.2A &s reer D s N <cle u a
/
V R A. A YKem (ou. ign M&4 cD3 Mx W h6/v,JAL G/]
M')di(
n H
i
[Cc TP. D > sis S c-- M~
~
i
~
Y-
. hl}{.LO MA)lh 06) ShWMOGR.
A I{
<b k
- f/}ff E b(SLft Oh]
NbObh5 "I
l
- '), E TdatuD/
Dc h)
Man a v v b Y. f( mn
._C,p,br,:,2ncela-I' u
i
~
if M. ku Ame < Ad,aido nsi,
/>
l
(.$ C. Su)c1t.s nitris Est,iseicakr ?/
a l
'R. A. Fearn ey (4ce Paaside~f
$1.J. Gc to//en e Poie/i%-
~
l l
l
=--==nn---...
PERSONS CONTACE D
'Ccmpany EDS Muc. LEAR Dates
//V-7/A2 Docket / Report No. 99960628/72-0/
Inspector 7z.#. B e ck/r v Page l of I
. LAME (Please Print)
TIT 1.E(Please Printi ORGANIZATION (Please 3rint)
O f /c 0 n/a s Corp. $$Ex~gilwer FDS Alacleae W
Aro/n & A14es AfGx (Guew $+
&ns
/fJccc M M AD b%OoD vaeoba g y.
G4 M 4 v-Ed S A/4C[caf' C n e m T. Beowue s~un. ah - Regar eaa cDs ANc.wns.
C HAK W S l} h R Af)6Cer PaomrMa naaer ("&'
?=DS AlueA n Owews T Sue
- n;s;~ muc.c,
5)S docxm,.
May A <9)WlhckE Eu PERU /s WG SUS E/25 Adeara/c l
1
~
dJ 7
l y
e/
e b
s4 b
a w2 m
c u
i o1' p
N l
9 4 AAA tt p o
4 H NN l'
mnnp
)ki eeea t t t mm tt
~
I uuf ccI er l oo(
h o r
cp
=s a_ s ADD
]
a i
n p u h oe r
tffo l
u me W DR nooi s
o r
u zt e
s A
A e l2 r
- ueei i
l r
s q pt v 3
c V VV E
neyae mSTDR u
lo
&y C1234 h
j W
g Ep
/
-9 B
W7 C [f_ Ala c
')
a c
Y I
eo c O z
l c
i -
D i 4
~J M
E l
T c
1 I
C u o l
s I
K zS o M
E Y
t 4
A J
a f
1 X
B c
E U
S
- S S
w 4
9 Tf S
/
7 D
T E
dmA l
L l
)
E T
n y
U T
nlA C
L r
M I
x a
%A C
Al s
r D
e f/
O s
i a
e s
v c
e ed d
e t a n
o S j m /g rr a
f j
A1 i
s_ A l
y Q_ $c O ro f
sO a
em i
n6 d e c
et l
[
rM e
M A nI 4
O p
s Mgn. n 2 l
S sa
(
/
o anr U e1 h rer 9
E t cet e 1 h_1c L rtth os 3
unet e 6 PILO 2
va j1e os P
f.
a e
pf s
5678 g
Al d ~E kn 4bE H
7_u C
T-f e
n o
o lk e
i s
s t
c a
2 e
ael c
e v
5 6 p
cra s
fe 3
A 8 y gi uu
/prgm
)
2 Tnfd n T
iiea t wccM M.
e:
naeo El erprA mDSPQ u
u r
d c
o o
o...
t M
. ~b 4
6 D1234_
1 z c
/
1 e
e p
p s
o n
c I
S
Inspector
'R.H.T~6tacl(IEv r
Scope / Module Tul,;u, Suo oorr/ O zt/s m A DOCUMENTS EXAMINED 1
2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3
4 1
5 TUGco TO'CPD-oz54 4/27h9 MA L
7 EDs -h 7tJSD (76. MCPD-e2540 7lMb9 AW 3
5 so po la m a n-f
- z lo To NPD -02SM 9bVh4 NR sf 6
ssNoIrurg/ H % Yo'CFD-o264 9Myo NA 6
6 Tb o 76 NPF.594-$
defri NA t.
B
&L %vasufro a G LL 1/n. onto-sio - 191 (6,& EM -CPES)-7tKc6 Wrl79 WA 7
8 T3xa\\ect deun rz.E see ><ds n c e F, Ie (rucawas Lsikre MmA 23r--Lw)
Uiusas MA C ON - Ncrt *0l-1014.-
ul:9lrl o
e e
9 A
%\\eil brtxtsoondants F,le (t%facuna leflsizs. EdC 'd.JTr/Moorf.9)
VArm WA so A
Rob (Coas.Tesk Tuh&a su
/8$fm,1) v/.ez/r/
WM TO5I Inhkcs. Codo/.Tdbucfoa,
$#ll/E 7
si 3
iz a
o n -ozio-so'6 (Tobiu c so..oicf Cr ferid is/sohe o
as 9
on-n 1to - rot. 6 214/ro I
s at A
s t - o zio - Io ten sIzn/tt z
s6 A
Calculd su Ha. Doo(Acouzearh. Aseaucks.'Or~ esraw roui. Ekfs.TxE )
eduI,A o
lL 8
Coleoidrau d. Ito(SNswc G an A sun.N (ACalculainoas.')
orIsol-re o
n
&+
sos Hucle+rt Dan [}u AAsorunulN I%uun/
4/ sol,s Is t8 6
PAD '18-oo2(AlkKNdeMfKM helprN6h&&&Qgysw) 9l77 t
t o
4 Document Types:
Columns:
1.
Drawing 5.
Purchas Order 1.
Sequential Item Number 2.
Specification 6.
Internal Memo 2.
Type of Document 3.
Procedure 7.
Letter 3.
Date of Document 4.
QA Manual 8.
Other (Specify-if necessary) 4.
Revision (If applicable)
r l
e b
b a
m c
u i
N l
A A
ttp
' o.
4 M
mnnp fA eeea t mm I uuf ccI l oo(
p ADD e
i n
tffo D
lE w
nooi e
s
[
o ueei z
s q pt v 3
I a
neyae u
v mSTDR u
lo C1234 C
A, E_,
A E sD l AO aT d.
D E
gt l
T e
a l
d s I
C M
E A
J Jto X
B E
U n-S
?o S
/
t T
E N
L
_ o E
T s-
)y M
I d 's r
U T
n a
C s
O ecd s
D i
e le x ce l
A n
d f
a i
1 e
$l
-y Ac f.
ro f
em i
[ icy rM e
de c
i )u, g
O p
n l
S f
a sa
(
e QA anr d
hrer cet e l
l l
rtth r-s unet a
x PILO r
8 te n.
n d
s s
d 5678 L,
4 g
[k no c
i u
4 s
t 4
e ael r
B p
cra
/,
2 88 y gi uu Tnfd n 5_
4 iiea 1
t wccM naeo Z
e erprA J
lu mDSPQ r
d u
o o
c t
M 9
o o
z D1234 c
/
1 I
e e
p p
s o
n c
I S
PERSONS CONTACTED Company Eb5 h)UCLEAR Dates l '4 !/ 88 Docket / Report No. 999 00588 /g2.OI Inspector 1.cs.312 EAU N Page h of NAME(Please Print)
TITLE (Please Drint)
ORGANIZATION (Please Print) k. AN EE.6 crf P. QA.
PAtJJAt:J: R-ebs Tc.ch ha a me.vmR e n s. a d e u t T h. S w a s.
%a,% l+/e,nna Lonen pn s k lenou
- 4. l2 Dwls k S ~ l-F r).S M.M.Alusc1A d$1Aa A s
rDS 2e un,an
'Jehsk ens J
l, 1l ser
)o so r
l o-e b
oe b
a 1
m c
%.g u
i N
l 5
ttp mnnp oo 4
\\
NN eeea t mm tt I uuf er ccI k o l oo(
cp ADD
\\
oe i
n l
DR R
A nooi tffo l
/
l e
s S
c ueei 1
sqpt v 3
ll /
l neyae 6
9 D
mSTDR u
I lo....
C1234
~
~
1 0
P~
l w
A, L, J 3b L
I D
N T
M U
L E
0 1
~
F I
I C
V h % e a
M E
A J
/,
o X
B 1
l E
U u
S L 4 S E
O h 1
S
/
T E
N n
I o
/
N L
o t
L n %
E T
)
i
).Uo I
S ry M
I f
U T
o M
t t
a C
A s
s n
O u h O
t s
D n 'A r
e O O M r
u a
A c
K e
3 n
.d k n
9 M )W,*
n
?
f
+
G C
i y
A l
ro f
n 3 b h em i
)
, o
[t,
, 1 k n, a de c
o C
b.
1 rM e
(
1 D
h
(
~
O p
2 u
b_
i c
h w
n 0 G
l S
9_
e
)t h
sa
(
I a
anr A
J L
, W 4
9 r
r-hrer L
s A l r
% A %
cet e k c M rtth 9 1 A O
o
~
~
h U
unet O
C C
PILO P
0 L
c t
(
b.
1 v
3 L
u 5 s i
s J
C 2
5678 9
b
)
C.
b u
R u
D n
T T I
- i E
r: T ir X
~
d n
A o
i E
s t
E e
ael f
p cra A 6 8 9~ 9, R
R R 8 l
i\\
l
\\
\\
y gi uu 2
Tnfd n iiea t wccM e
naeo D
l erprA u
mDSPQ r
d u
o o
c t
M o....
c
/
1 D1234 e
e p
p s
o n
c I
S
Inspector h _ RPEAOX Docket No.rn7e9 see R: port Na, _gz.n, Scope / Module Pag 2 L cf a
DOCUMENTS EXAMINED l
l 1
2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3
4 8
Pet QA FIAst i %A3 CRh h b a,lm i s
I O_om 3 gb i
-_r> o D we m 9am, v 5e $ 2 An 00 C*- '., n d.
D,A n 'n M.hsm V fu,'n t o l2 % lc>1_
IL, m, b EndQtA,s?
ObClo-Oti it. I 3,14 - 45R t o /MM/
t J
I I
Sob *
'h, m. 9ahic Paht Co E w n% cin - n,it,#S,M - 45) 5/s/g, 3
i e
i D w h P m iu) PMeT toe v o : A o - o o ~2 - P A 1.-
3/4 Rn r
i caA L iLm S h >.. A GA h ul (?,a s,a);%
~I OMn -00$ ~4AB 8/Po/81
~7 osq o - oc a - 1o4 s/s dr-o 9
C n r e s 2 o v4 <,. ~
_ u f 3 P m s ?, o. 6 L M C A fo t?.
'si Mo le/n/b>
s c 1 t C 4 _ hemio b A L LO
- A ic4/v 8
ru s u A fAev>.
nm uh 90ynu 0 Vila>dkY % ~ 'OYhhm w ll 2b/9) ff CA LC5.
MPc1- 05 C-U 10/9 /d/
7- -
8 evJcm-ca B (ch nlu/m 2
O (ECCT -O3 C fo /f t/9 /
~2._.
I th) toc 4 B3 -RPCI o9 8 [L loh1/a i i
Document Types:
Columns:
1.
Drawing 5.
Purchas Order 1.
Sequential Item Number 2.
Specification 6.
Internal Memo 2.
Type of Document 3.
Procedure 7.
Letter 3.
Date of Document 4.
QA Manual 8.
Other (Specify-if necessary) 4.
Revision (If applicable)
]
i
5 2
)
$o e
b o
e r
l n
b a
?
?-
p m
c e
9 u
i N
l ttp oo 4
mnnp o
NN eeea a
I l
t mm tt I uuf er ccI k o l oo(
cp
/
ADD
/,
M
/
a /s F> M d
/
/o4h l, A /
i n
oc
/
i
)
l 4
tffo
?
DR S
/
/ b nooi hb N
f e
s
/
7 h
l s d
/
/
9
/
9
/
n ueei i
/
/. /c
/
l 1
/
/
/
/
t
/
s q pt v 3
lb l
t /
e neyae i
/
2 s 9
/
/
i c 9 mSTDR 9
9
/
j 1
u lo s
C1234 b
n a d
i L
e n r
c J,
D R
A
/
5
/
u m
4 i
a i
- K, a.,
a f.
DE l
E a.
b b
M Jh V h 0
L
, d t.
5 b G
L R
0 s
/
D b
2 A
A > )M E
N T
a P
I C
=
h M
E o
m A
J O
o f
t X
B l
b, uY D
9
?
E U
n S
h 8 C
0
- M E
1 S
/
c>
T E
~d 0 h o n h
o N
L L (b 0
e 7
n w
E T
)
C l
p-9 y
M I
- f k B o
i L.lu$
r U
T 5
a C
b b
?
s O
o 0
b s
D T i.
2 e
n L N
m c
h e
n w A
e e
n c>
a n
L n
D t 9
& w I q s
n f
o 4 A 9 4
B i
u k
i n
h n
P y
S ro f
A F
a r
b b 7 w' L u
em
/
i h
de c
L
[h t e o
u u
O p
u rM e
A e
0 F d
A w
P E
o p
M o-% %
h i
Pa hrer Q
o l
S o
n sa
(
o
'c P
U anr
-)L O
b e
l P cet e LW s
c w s
)
rtth 9
+
v o
% L n L v
unet I,
N 6 A
.n h c
PILO 3 I
% h w w
f u M L u ud 1
l S n P
P D 3
V P 5678 D
k I
D I
D T
d A
n C-o R
i s
t B
e ael p
cra f 3 9 B B 8 5
8 0 Go @b y gi u u 2
l Tnfd n C,
I I
l iiea t wccM D
e naeo l
erprA u
mDSPQ r
d u
o o
c t
M o.
c
/
1 D1234 e
e p
p s
o n
c I
S l
'i,
.h
- y..
C:mpany ENS M4' O/
Dates 17M M
/f,P2-I..; ;;t;;- / Z 7' '
12 N. /h ue' /Jo "
Docket / Report No.
Page of NAME(Please Print)
TITl.E(Please Print)
ORGANIZATION (Please Print) l baEl LL:bc<cocl 4,6\\QA Wr.(wh4.3 EDS tJuc_lene
\\h)\\ LLI A tA TLC HQ b \\
SccA tt n Ma a s u '
EDS
!)octect y
- th ( 4 t IfrFFVTL Se clmn M rw s, tA FDs NmeAc as 4sb u e A m k/rus) bOPERUISIOb L;rkishwa t%
A )v eisse
[Yf x)
- c. b o f i' n 1 lk..s,,.-
of /
n je c lS ft)S p/y r //n,
ce v
v
(
(
G
'r':A)Ab (h hN%b61
$/).( AfirfGeh Orriewn !)vs'f s
//ksew_
G u p 4 it ri) A
,/+) 7 A4c, en k'ATHEl(26 ft)0 Al G Su9&se viS in 6 en6 EO S Al u c t. M At Eb ?YC 0co+t(tS 0e+p &fl Str/C E1)S [bic ea-e TTL. I D. :a 5. ?s.. -
nos & b..-
?
/
()'T )E V
'llre 008tko u b Prl0L]A l ik h U M C C USSMriC!P(th fr s/ h.
f o
- M. n o,,J u.,
& f 4 L a J Nccuc &cL u w ec azu 7 Y Y:-
Gdc 1;wsc h <
as " e c x RZ~
A H.
6,,,
k,.b 6,6 s.
m ad.-
'D.m.BesAu x escror<
osont rc Tv 7t. Fl. marc tde n
%cion: Eman-veux tw Oscar L(1 InWc 4 benvww E 01 Atem <
M
Inspector
/
[/pt e
y g
Scope / Module f j 7 S f d // S DOCUMEtlTS EXAMINED 5 9 2 7 e 2. /3 1
2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3
4 A
3 fro;nt 7' a f, w f,2.1 (rZ)
T/k
/.o."
Em. :, u m c. Cr:li,:a / 'WS/
S~~
/
/
P,n e.x_/i>rt' 4' 7/,a Rs viha nu/
t' se fu f, ? n et Ar / catr i
i Ds v:c.14,,
ti= A 7 9-I't lL 3
Pz 7-f4 C o,
F,+, ' < n :-.r l' : b, :,
/fese#A,re &
f f
A. sair <c fn e l' to I
'I Alu -
G-~
b. A : / < ~u
//$f?
E 3
3 PI 7~f4 6. n
")% n(w w& Gua.ia n s' n n / w i s -
Yoh3/Ki 3
I
/
f) f
/
/
s el f;h:m
?
3
/ & l-f/e# c/,o
" l'ro t niew b L,7 hnt 4<'a t/Aw C~'/w
/Clf/'V/
A N f, w,. a n. Jma_
i 7.
3
] >x"7b4 bc o " 9.J f ak, d /4 t!AJ A d~k
.ctr 2//f~ f/
.2
/
i
/^
v t
/o/2/a/~
1 3
Pr 7.'M 2 7, c.
& c<d a L
<'~( << 4 ;~ lb., ~ tv e ul t
~
p, o j, i,, w, "
U EM5~~L ;"y>
Bc-Jnr
/i/is/s/
o 7
3 PI D fle 3/ O.
huniw w
I's p : m S 'rw Medei sc"
/
i
+
W 3
'rr 7?t4 '9.2.o
&,2f f u(d Cran:ea hw
9'bV/2/
/
9 3
l'E 7H/e 3 9 C !"Jia hk f, e,,
l'<euc/bc_ $/ Re ch,Jr's a A
/// //#I.
O
~
/
/
- )
W Rs ua,7s n, R t~ f,au lf f
l
/0 3
/W wt/e 3s.s '" /fs e e./ Jt, e Lt..f Actan A%of fan 8/t?///
O i
it
(
Document Types:
Columns:
1.
Drawing 5.
Purchas Order 1.
Sequential Item Number 2.
Specification 6.
Internal Memo 2.
Type of Document l
3.
Procedure 7.
Letter 3.
Date of Document 4.
QA Manual 8.
Other (Specify-if necessary) 4.
Revision (If applicable l
i l
e
D D
inspector _ / % [ h e
flo.'
09" 4 UI 4*
)
Scope / Module fc2 9Jc7f 8 DOCUMEtlTS EXAMlliED Sf2 76,2 6 1
2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3
4 ll 8
70 5 G /c lui:o n //'aabk Mc.
D.2 - HLr.
- F 7-6
//t'C z-
/>!E/El C)
Snts-Fo f/ g u e
/ic i e s s,- ;,, r "
/1 2
L=k c G (,, J s.k, // % i-G ~
n2 - et'C r -c f e (c) "/in'r la /i f.V l
/
L h i,, e 3 isa N K ri,1
~
9 u i
/3 3
/ % t. ri l h w v in.. A,
//yk,
M I
" /'r u < Ju u Av L:/va, R/2 7/iy
.2_.
N,, 1+,- c., c e c/We!>,,rc h nL,a L, h~ia._, fa <a h' c Ed S
e154 t, - th f.b<j ikl!
. Sv D.,
L (if ' E ir en 11 t y 'Rb M s k,, (i,,.-/s a d I I
/E b?,j%1.u R+!i.:.,se T
/w/ L C:/;xs
/ 4 :L "
/Y 8
EOS CakGkn //%l,/e>r, Ala.
&t - >it </ o - 4 8 / s'C-c 7. "Are ic/ik/s t o
Sul%'<T /Lleclo'//raffe n 4v 15 / n - / X "
vv v
Document Types:
Columns:
1.
Drawing 5.
Purchas Order 1.
Sequential Item Number 2.
Speci fica tion 6.
Internal Memo 2.
Type of Document 3.
Procedure 7.
Letter 3.
Date of Docenent 4.
QA Manual 8.
Other (Specify-if necessary) 4.
Revision (If applicabic e