ML20050D881
| ML20050D881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1982 |
| From: | Boardman J, Boardmn J, Hill W, Martin L, Oberg C, Tomlinson D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 50-498-82-01, 50-498-82-1, 50-499-82-01, 50-499-82-1, NUDOCS 8204120404 | |
| Download: ML20050D881 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000498/1982001
Text
-
.
.
APPENDIX B
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Report:
50-498/82-01; 50-499/82-01
Dockets:
50-498
50-499
Licensee:
Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P)
P. O. Box 1700
Houston, Texas 77001
Facility:
South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2
Inspection At: South Texas Project, and HL&P Corporate Office, Houston, Texas
Inspection Conducted:
This report covers the month of January 1982
Inspector:
[
M/J//2
. Martin, Aeactor Inspector, RPS-B
Fate /
.
(Details Section B)
3/43//2
r
p
.
.
C.R.Oberg,InspecyonSpecialist
Ddte
(Details Section A)
M!D
)
tw e
J.
' Boardman, Reactor Inspector, RPS-B
Date'
(D ails Section C)
h
shre
3 - 2.3 ' S *
p
LT.~ P. IbstTnfon, Reactor Inspector, ES
Date
(Details Section C)
Off W M
s ,62
AdN. M. Hill, S(nior Resident Inspector, RPS-B
Katv
(Details Section C)
8204120404 820323
PDR ADOCK 05000498
O
]
'
.
,
N
nsNnW
b
E Sh
o
7 " K. A. Whittlesey, Reactor Inspector (Trainee)
Date '
l
Reviewed By:
b $n Adw;f
3
3/82
D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, Engineering Section
Uate
Uh
. G. Hubacek
) Coordinator
Faty
f[2$[g2.
Approved By:
%_
W. A. Crossman, Chief
Date
Reactor Project Section B
Inspection Summary:
Inspection conducted during month of January 1982 (Report: 50-498/82-01; 50-499/82-01)
Areas Inspected: Details Section A - Quadrex Report Review and Status; Details
Section B - Transition Activities Site / Houston; Details Section C - Storage and
Maintenance Activities onsite.
This inspection period involved 201 inspector-
hours by eight NRC inspectors.
Results:
In the three areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified
in two of the areas.
One violation was identified in the area of storage and
maintenance onsite relating to warehouse storage (Details Section C, paragraph 3).
2
J
.
DETAILS SECTION A
1.
Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Employees
S. M. Dew, Manager, Engineering Department
L. R. Jacobi, Jr., Supervising Engineer, Nuclear Safety & Licensing
C. G. Robertson, Manager, Nuclear Licensing Department
J. G. White, Principal Engineer, Nuclear Engineering
M. Powell, Team Leader, Licensing
2.
Quadrex Report *
a.
General
The inspector met with licensee representatives on January 20, 21,
and 22, 1982, initiating a special inspection effort concerning the
Quadrex Report.
The purpose of the initial meeting was to determine
the manner in which Houston Lighting & Power (HL&P) plans to resolve
the issues identified in the Quadrex Report,
b.
Background
The Quadrex Corporation, under contract to HL&P, conducted a study
of the Brown and Root (B&R) design and engineering activities.
A report of their efforts was issued in early May 1981.
The
purpose of the study was to conduct an independent review of the
B&R design and engineering program.
The Quadrex Report is a three
volume document.
Volume I is an executive summary of the findings.
B&R response and Quadrex assessment of design questions are
provided in Volumes II and III.
The Quadrex Corporation conducted a review of the following technical
disciplines:
Civil / Structural
Computer Programs and Codes
Electrical / Instrumentation and Control
Geotechnic
Mechanical
Nuclear Analysis
Piping and Supports / Stress and Special Stress
Radiological Control
- " Design Review of Brown & Root Engineering Work for the South Texas Project,"
(three volumes), a study conducted by the Quadrex Corporation, 1700 Dell Avenue,
Campbell, California,
3
)
A sampling program was devised to provide indication of potentially
weak areas in the STP plant design.
3.
HL&P Actions Regarding the Quadrex Report
Through discussion with HL&P personnel and review of correspondence, it
was determined that an independent Bechtel task group has been established
to review the Quadrex Report.
Currently, the Bechtel assessment is scheduled for completion by the end
of March 1982.
It is to contain comments by B&R and Quadrex Corporation.
HL&P plans to submit the Bechtel Report to the NRC (RIV) as soon as it is
received.
The NRC inspector told the HL&P personnel that the NRC is planning to
track all Quadrex findings to their resolution.
In addition, contacts
would be made with the Bechtel task group and, subsequently, with the
Quadrex Corporation.
The purpose of the initial meeting with the
Bechtel task group leader was to identify the Bechtel approach to the
Quadrex findings and to discuss the extent of NRC's concerns regard-
ing the Quadrex Report.
4.
Management Meeting
The NRC inspector met with one or more of the persons identified in
paragraph 1, on January 22, 1982, to discuss inspection information.
4
__
.
. -
..
..-
-
-
.
..
..
__
-
-
i
-
.
DETAILS SECTION 8
1.
Person Contacted
Principal Licensee Employees
J. E. Geiger, Project QA Manager
D. R. Keating, Project QA General Supervisor
J. W. Williams, Site Manager
J. W. Estella, Supervisor Quality Systems / Admin.
T. J. Jordan, Project QA Supervisor
!
l
R. M. McDaniel, Quality Assurance
M. E. Powell, Licensing Assistant Team Leader
'
J. L. Blau, Supervisor Project Engineering
J. G. White, Engineering
J. R. Molleda, Engineering
Bechtel Personnel
J. L. Hurley, Project Engineering Manager
K. R. Dotterer, Project QAE
D. T. Krisha, QA Manager
A. W. Stenerson, Deputy QA Manager
B. R. McCullough, Manager, Construction
J. R. Downs, Deputy Manager, Construction
R. L. Patterson, Manager Division QA
Brown and Root Personnel
,
A. W. Smith, Project QA Manager
D. J. Harris, Assistant Project QA Manager
F. W. Rothermel, Assistant Project Manager
P. S. Jordan, Licensing Manager
J. H. Wawrzeniak, Assistant Engineering Project Manager
R. D. Hamilton, Engineering Coordinator
'
!
The above listed personnel were present at one or more meetings held during
January 11-14, 1982, at the South Texas Project and the HL&P Corporate
Field Office in Houston, Texas.
2.
General
1
W. A. Crossman, W. G. Hubacek, and L. E. Martin of Region IV, met with
licensee representatives, Bechtel, and Brown and Root personnel on site
and in Houston, to discuss the transfer of responsibilities to Bechtel
!
and the yet unnamed constructor.
'
i
The basic transition program was discussed, including status and the
various organizational responsibilities.
5
.___ _ __ _. -
.
. . - _ .
_ . . _ . .--, _
. , _ - - - _
_
-
- . _ , -
..
-
-_
.
_ _ _ _ .
- _ _ _
_ .-
. . _ - - - -
- _ .
4
<
-
.
!
i
1
3.
Onsite Activities
Brown and Root has approximately 600 people onsite.
They are involved in
care and maintenance, receiving and storage, ASME walkdowns, and document
control activities.
Bechtel has approximately 130 people onsite involved-
3'
in ASME walkdowns, system statusing and procurement turnover.
Bechtel
is presently operating under a Memorandum of Understanding as the Bechtel
i
contract is not scheduled to take effect until February 15, 1982.
The inspectors reviewed the schedules and Bechtel staffing plans through
the defined transition periods.
The ASME interface agreement may be
issued by January 15, 1982, the Project Quality Program Manual should be
'
complete by mid-February, and the ASME walkdowns should be complete by
the first week in February.
4.
Houston Corporate Field Office and A/E Transition
The transfer of the engineering effort is to be accomplished via Brown and
Root assembled work packages (160 packages) and subpackages (approximately
l
1400).
B&R submits the packages to Bechtel.
HL&P, at this time, is only
statusing the packages and tracking them.
The present B&R contract
'
'
expires April 30, 1982.
If the preparation of work packages has not been
!
completed, HL&P will subcontract B&R to completion.
4
HL&P will review in total, the final draft of the work package report and
will have surveillance responsibilities.
HL&P QA will review procedures
and audit the transition activities.
The NRC inspectors outlined the basic inspection program for the transition
period and delineated the key individuals from Region IV to be used as
1
contacts.
l
The discussions, both at the site and in Houston, were mutually beneficial.
i
The inspectors had no further questions.
I
i
4
!
!
i
6
_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _
_
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
,
DETAILS SECTION C
1.
Persons Contacted
Principal Licensee Employees
- J. E. Geiger, Project Quality Assurance Manager
- D. F. Bednarczyk, Project Quality Assurance Supervisor, Civil
- F. T. Alkov, Project Material Control
- D. L. Teague, QA Specialist
S. K. Hubbard, Senior QA Specialist
R. Russell, Construction Engineer
- D. R. Keating, Project Quality Assurance General Supervisor
J. W. Estella, Supervisor, Quality Systems / Administration
J. W. Williams, Site Manager
- I.
P. Morrow, Construction Superintendent
Other Personnel
- A. W. Smith, Project Quality Assurance Manager, Brown & Root (B&R)
- F. W. Rothermel, Assistant Project Manager, B&R
- D. J. Harris, Assistant Project Quality Assurance Manager, B&R
- K. L. Clegg, Special Projects, B&R
- R. A. Meggison, Project QC Engineer, Bechtel Power Corp.
L. Hearn, Warehouse General Foreman, B&R
F. Dunham, General Foreman, Paint Department, B&R
J. Wood, Foreman, Permanent Plant Maintenance, B&R
D. Coppeler, Project Quality Control Superintendent, B&R
A. A. Brown, PPM Records Supervisor, B&R
- A. W. Stenerson, Deputy QA Manager, Bechtel
D. R. Downs, Deputy Manager, Construction, Bechtel
- B. R. McCullough, Construction Manager, Bechtel
- D. T. Krisna, Project QA Manager, Bechtel
- Denotes those persons attending one or more of the exit meetings during
January 1982.
2.
Site Tour
Routine tours of the site were conducted by the Senior Resident Inspector
and the region-based inspectors to observe housekeeping activities, general
cleanliness, protection and preservation of equipment and material, personnel
access control, and plant status.
Areas observed included:
Units 1 and 2
Reactor Containment Buildings, Mechanical-Electrical Auxiliary
Buildings, Fuel Handling Buildings, and Diesel Generator Buildings
7
.
.
.
.
Site
Reservoir, Essential Cooling Pond, and storage areas, including
the warehouses, laydown areas, and the welding fabrication shop.
With regard to the above areas, the inspectors confirmed the following:
Safety-related and storage areas were free from an accumulation of
.
trash, refuse, and debris.
The areas were clean and free of foreign matter.
.
Tools, equipment, and material were returned to their proper storage
.
location when no longer in use.
An accumulation of fine sand or grit was observed in the Mechanical-Electrical
Auxiliary Building (MEAB) and cleaning was in progress by assigned personnel.
Through discussion with licensee personnel and review of previous records,
the inspector learned that this item of concern was previously identified
and acknowledged by the licensee.
The inspector will continue to monitor
the cleaning efforts as part of the routine inspection program.
Any items
of concern identified during the tour were presented to the licensee and
resolved by management personnel.
Of particular interest during these tours were the measures being taken to
prevent potential degradation of components and materials during the
current extended construction delay.
Most of the loose materials stored
in the Reactor Containment Building (RCB) and MEAB have been inventoried and
removed to warehouse storage areas.
Approximately 15 stacks of structural
steel and pipe spools in these two areas were observed by the inspectors.
Each was tagged with an identification sheet which tied each stack to a
specific job and drawing number.
Much of the installed piping was tagged
with vinyl tape strips of various colors or color combinations identifying
the individual piping systems and the persons conducting the inventory.
Each system is being walked down and visually inspected by Bechtel as part
of the design review portion of the transition phase of construction turnover.
During the tour of the warehouse areas, numerous pallets of material returned
from the construction areas were noted.
Each was identified as noted above,
and was traceable to a particular job and drawing number.
No in-depth review
was conducted of the warehouse storage procedures as Brown & Root still
retains this function which has been satisfactorily reviewed during
previous inspections.
General warehouse conditions appeared adequate.
Material was neatly stored, heaters were operational, and equipment requir-
ing energization was energized.
The ends of all piping spools observed,
whether stored or installed, were capped and sealed, as were the open-
ings on pumps, valves and other components.
Any items of concern identified during these tours were presented to the
licensee and resolved by management personnel.
8
]
-
.
3.
Storage and Maintenance
The inspectors observed activities in several warehouses and other
designated storage areas with particular attention paid to the following
activities:
Classification and location of specific equipment - Various storage
.
areas were segregated and classified as levels A through D to
provide appropriate storage and environmental control for various
types of equipment.
Temperature and humidity were being measured and recorded to confirm
.
that ambient conditions were being controlled as appropriate.
Storage areas were not being used to store food, drink, or salt.
.
An active program was in effect to control rodents and small animals.
.
Racks, crates, and cribbing were carrying the full weight without
.
component distortion.
All items were labeled and stored in a manner that allows access
.
for inspection.
Fire protection systems and equipment were available for use.
.
.
Sufficient dunnage was available to materials and components in
storage.
Canvas or plastic covering was available for weather protection,
.
as required.
.
Protective covers and seals were properly attached.
Personnel access to the storage locations were adequtely controlled.
The inspectors noted numerous maintenance personnel who were performing
checks and preventative maintenance procedures.
During the week of January 18-22, 1982, the following findings were
identified.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, requires that, " Activities af fect-
ing quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or
drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accom-
plished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include appropriate quantitative
or qualitative acceptance criteria for determining that important activities
have been satisfactorily accomplished."
9
]
.
,
.
The following are examples of an apparent violation of the requirement
that activities affecting quality be accomplished in accordance with
documented procedures or instructions:
a.
Brown and Root Procedure A040KPMECP-8, Revision 0, " Control of
Welding Material," dated June 13, 1978, paragraph 8.5.3.2, requires
that material returned without the original flag tag shall be
stored in the Material Distribution Station (MDS) as Miscellaneous
Weld Filler Material (MWFM), and transferred to the Welder Qualifi-
cation and Training Center (WQTC) for training only.
On January 18,
1982, an NRC inspector in the licensee warehouse storage area for
welding material identified three boxes of bare welding wire which
licensee personnel indicated were for use for safety-related
applications.
These three boxes had been issued from the warehouse
and had been returned to the warehouse.
Each box contained one or
more lengths of bare wire which had no flag tag, but these boxes had
not been sent to the WQTC as required.
These boxes were transferred
to the WQTC by the licensee after this condition was identified by
the NRC inspector.
b.
Brown and Root Procedure ST-QAP-13.1, Revision 0, Amendment 0.1,
" Receiving Inspection," effective December 15, 1981, paragraph 3.14,
requires that items determined to be acceptable shall be identified
with a " Release for Construction" tag until the material is released
from warehouse control. On January 18 and 19, 1982, . two NRC inspectors
found 21 lots of safety-related fasteners, pipe fittings and valves
stored in licensee warehouse, under warehouse control, without the
required " Release for Construction" tags.
Subsequently, licensee
personnel provided the NRC inspector with a copy of licensee Quality
Assurance Corrective Action Report (CAR) Number HP-032, dated
November 23, 1981, which identified this same type of deficiency for
safety-related materials stored under warehouse control in storage
level D laydown areas.
Failure to accomplish activities affecting Quality as prescribed in
documented instructions or procedures is an apparent violation of
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V.
This is a violation. (8201-1)
4.
Storage of Construction Materials
The NRC inspectors toured storage areas for the diesel generators, for
instrumentation and control systems material, and for coatings (paints).
The licensee's contractor has been controlling shelf life for coatings.
Contractor procedures for safety related coatings, such as Specification
3A810W5017-C, " Service Level I Coatings for Concrete Surfaces," including
Design Change Notices and Field Change Requests through November 5, 1981,
exclude coating thinners from shelf life control, even though shelf life
10
]
,'
.
,
.
of thinners is specified by manufacturers for Level 1 (safety-related)
This will remain an unresolved item until the licensee has
documentation substantiating that shelf life control is not required
for thinners, and that use of thinners having exceeded the manufacturers'
established shelf life will not result in degradation of Level I coatings
throughout plant life during all postulated conditions, including the
Design Base Accident. (8201-02)
5.
Aluminum Bronze Pipe and Components for the Essential Cooling Water (ECW)
System
During the inspection, an NRC inspector discussed with licensee personnel
the licensee's use of aluminum bronze pipe and components in the essential
cooling water system which is safety-related.
Based on his previous experi-
ience, the NRC inspector was aware of the phenomenon of "De-aluminization."
"De-aluminization" is the dissolving of aluminum from an aluminum bronze
alloy under certain environmental conditions, such as use with saline water,
unless the aluminum bronze alloy is stabilized by the addition of approx-
imately 4 percent nickel.
"De-aluminization" reduces the strength of the
material and has been known to make the material permeable to liquids.
A
subsequent discussion with licensee personnel indicates that the aluminum
bronze material specified for the ECW system was not nickel stabilized and
that the possibility of de-aluminization had not been considered or technically
evaluated.
Pending technical verification that "de-aluminization" will not
occur or have a deleterious effect on the aluminum bronze pipe and components
installed in the ECW system, this will remain an unresolved item. (8201-03)
6.
Unresolved Items
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in
order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations, or
deviations.
Two unresolved items are identified in paragraphs 4 and 5
of this section of the report.
7.
Exit Meetings
Exit meetings were held on January 14, 21, and 29, 1982, with the licensee
representatives to discuss the scope and findings of that particular span of
the inspection period.
The violation (paragraph 3) and the two unresolved
items (paragraphs 4 and 5) were identified.
During this time, Mr. W. M. Hill reported to the South Texas Project as the
Senior Resident Inspector for the USNRC.
Mr. Hill met with appropriate
site personnel in an introductory meeting.
11
.
.
CC F
M6
U.S. NUCLEA;t REGULATORY COMMISSION
patNC: Pat NSPEC cm,Nane 4sr * r sew ami
-,.',oaw
Q t)f5 Msc , k). G *
- "C ms
INSPECTOR'S REPORT
,,, ,,,
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
'li i C*
gu erssm.9tJ
l
he k
///U A/ *$$Al
- s,E c rea s
<
.
$b h '
i l l,.,,
r
o
LA/74w?w
X. w. /&nrws
l JE. B/wmm V
f
$
- E
OOCm E T NO 8 o9t:: on LICENSE
UCENSEE. * E NOC 4
yy,
NC 8v paOOuCTm309ts'
No
SECL
MO
VR
NOU77'OM k # 6-H T/Ne$ V heefR
~
O MO f 4!O f 4 9 ![
h 7, O I
'
" - *0D"
O ftold 01'/ 914
- 7 2- 0
l
e
T' O 'B d / #740
H00fTeN,
TG / 4.s
0 - cELETE
C l
a
nEPLACE
o
=) y gp p /
-
_
PE MOO o' 'Nvt 3 flGA fiON nNSPECTiON
INSPECTION Pf afopMEO ev
ORGAN 42ATON CODE OF REGION /MG CONOUCT.
M ACM N M M
am
FaoM
TO
K. aEGoNat oppiCE ST AFF
,OfpEn
m-- ~ u.~ an,' u.m
m
90
CAv l va
uo
OAv l va
X- #ESIDENT WSPECTom
'
y. -
"EG.C N
Ais.cN
BaANCH
I?.ANtiSTICM lEM
q
j
g
A
oli l IJ lFlt o!s All j dal *
2 Pf aFoawANCE APPaAisat TEAv
.EiNE a M M P 5 W "~78 M N
MM
i sQke '.d 4.M A .
.
aEcioNAL ACTmN
r v ai or Acriviry ComouCTEo ics.c. aa.co o,.vi
'C********'"
M
02 - S AF ETY
M - VGMT visit
to PLANT SEC.
14 - INQUIRY
_
i - NaC Foau set
_
03
'NC: DENT
07 - SPEC:AL
11 - INVENT VER
5 8NVESTIGAfiON
^e - EN50aCEMENT
JB - vf NOoR
12 - SMiPMENT! EXPORT
X
2 aEcioNAt os5'CE LETTER
>
s - vGuf Aucif
39 - M A T ACCT
O -MPOa7
~
' -
'
'.. Y.
.
u" rpm' r - n *
vm.W N.
.
. '
.d O
.
% .6.-12 /
' :
,
" ~;g 3;g;; y - -
crAtNuveEa
EvcaCEvENr CONsf aENcf
aEPoat con r A.m a 7so
LETTEa on aEPoniin ANsuiTTAL oA rE
cF vcLArons AND
pac
'Nsoa v A ricN
A
9
C
O
DEviArcNs
RC FCPM s91
af ront SENT
1 - CLEAN
OnaEG
To 90. Fom
LETTE81SSUEo
ACTION
f3
2 - v0LATION
j e jC
o
AIeiClol
Cl0
volcAV l V8 l90 l CAY !VA
i - CEviArioN
A
A
e
e - WOLATON 4 DEVIATON
[j "Yd49k l l l l l
j
g,jj
j
l j l j 1
vtS
l
1
VES
,
,
l
.; {
.
MoOULE 'NFCava f'ON
90001 E 'NF0avaroN
uooutE NuvsE n iNsp
ug e
vooulE ato Followup
f.j
vooutE NuveER INS 8
yg 9
MODutt REQ. Followup
f,$
I
55 6
s:3
5
I
I
5
3 59
I
- !
8:
- 5
8
- iseza iE
- !
2:
S
- 5
8:
- firsc
5
$
3 !%
5I
i
- 5
3 s!I 2:
.
.
_
l
i li 5
%
0 !)
5I
i
r
i
3 35
5I
si
4
3
I 55
Z 3
e d d 5lif5
%IsfM3 7.5
r89
I
3 v
I
i!
'
"
5
i
c
e!9
f a5
23
"
3
I
5
I3
- 3 f
a
i3
3 .s
'
Al 2 5dM71
C21o
liiI
62 fi2l M islA
co is
ii
i Iiii
^
'
-
e
,,
i
f f
I I
I
I f
f i
i l
i
t
I
t i
t f
I
l !
l i
f 1
1
l !
-
[
l
-
g
"
"
,
! I
t !
! I l 1 !
t !
t I
f ! !
! !
7OI
/ Ot/
lI
It
l
!I
l
8
i S
'
t
i
1 i
i
t
e
t
t
l
I !
t I
i
!
i
1 i
t i
!
! I
1 1
! !
I
f 1
t !
t '
f
f i
i i
I f
i
f I
I t
t
t
i
!
!
!
!
!
I
t
15i P
Mc
,i!lI
liil
liiI
liiI
5
'
'
/
i
e
i
i
, i
i i
i
'
'
l
i !
t !
I
I l
l l
I !
!
I I
l
i
i i
!
1
I
I f
1
I
I f
I
1 i
!
! !
!
!
'
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
15! i i
l!! liil di!
li! l I'
lii
l
iIiiI
N
!
l
f
i
i
i i
! !
t '
'
I i
1 i
f !
!
l 1
1 I
t '
i
l i
1 !
! t
I
I I
.
. . , . . .
.
,
- ' *'
!
~
! !
! ! . .
!
I l
I i
! l
.
I
! !
TlOk kfMTW194 fuhCTM4 W irL 'tsl1 '2CVYE 20
- li3% [507 INT 790l" M EMS $167dEltelidL dioVl@%M
-
-
,
-
.
.
-
.
Nec8084 MEA
'j'h
Docatt wo ce ogisica uct,s=i
agpont
woouLINLustm
%. < sv aaooucmts ee
4 ,jg.ggy..
%.
g ,,o, ,p gy,g g
- egggfpgy
INSPECTOR'S REPORT
C SCCO 4 9 A
5 2 o il a
(Continuation)
- "'*" ""*" " ' Sp*" i Seo
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
K
R ,X ac-~
,
a
3
e
.
.
C
~
8o
0
twTcn on OttnA Tnn (Eneer ano no tnoaenerectors we eacn oren at the rest onceeds enue norncer, or wur ce neceanery to pere: m L mn s
-
,-
1
onen m 50 cnerectors eacna
-
e
1
1
EE
f >C F .Cf
l[iR f/C/)
4
S
.
7
8
9
'O
11
'l
t3
+4
\\
,
..
- ?
'
99
20
21
22
a
24
3
M
,, \\
n!
.,
E
35
l
,2
=!a
!
ni
!
..
,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSibN