ML20080F200
| ML20080F200 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1983 |
| From: | Benson J, Bustard L, Salazar E SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19292B842 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-A-1650 NUDOCS 8402100378 | |
| Download: ML20080F200 (18) | |
Text
a Annual Report:
EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION INSPECTION PROGRAM 1
1.
L.
D.. Bustard, J.
J.
Benson, and E.
A.
Salazar Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185 operated by Sandia Corporation for the ~
U.
S.
Department of Energy Prepared for Vendor Program Branch Region IV U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Arlington. Texas 76011 Under Interagency Agreement DOE-40-550-75 NRC Fin Nos. A-1650 and B-3101 lI%.9.14h3N va XA Copy Has Been Senf15'PDR
Table of Contents 1.
Executive Summary...
3 2.
Summary of Technical Findings for FY83 Activities.
4 3.
Summary of FY83 Inspection Activities.
11 4.
Financial Information 15 E
5 t
....-,,_.,-,.._-,,.,,,n..,_.-,.
.~
O G
I l'
Executive Summary 1
During FY83 Sandia's Equipment Qualification Inspection.
Program.(EQIP) participated in 40 NRC. RIV inspections of
-qualification test efforts and facilities.
Ten test
-laboratories, eight irradiation facilities, six manufacturers
- Which perform qualification activities, and two NSSS vendors were inspected.
Several of these facilities were visited more than once.
The inspection ef' fort resulted in many technical findings.
We provide. illustrative, examples to highlight the issues of:
Qualification Strategies. Inadequate Instrumentation.
-Calibration. Conflicts in Data ar Analy' sis, Documentation.
Review, Prototype Testing. andLTest Plans and Procedures.
Some of our technical concerns illustrate areas where additional NRC guidance may~be useful.
For example:
t 1.
Frequently a manufacturer will perform mo're than one test on his product and/or include several specimens in
_a single test.
Must all test results be noted in the qualification report, or may the manufacturer be i
selective in which test results are documented for
~
qualification purposes?
What criteria distinguishes research results from qualification test results?
This issue frequently arises when a manufacturer performs a generic test in preparation for marketing of a product.
When product sales are successful, the generic effort many times forms the basis for the plant-specific qualification documentation.
2.
To what extent can post-accident acceleration techniques be used to compress a one-year accident requirement into a manageable experimental test?
Is there a minimum L
accident exposure period; say 10 hrs. 15 days, or 30 L
days, for which a postulated a ccident must be simulated l
prior'to performing acceleration techniques to simulate the remaining portion of the accident?
l 3.
How does one establish " current state-of-the-art" l-qualification capabilities?' Many manufacturers and test laboratories consider their test capabilities and practices to-be proprietary.
'4.
What limits are appropriate for similar~ity analysis?
l-Can another manufacturer's product be referenced in a similarity analysis?
Is there a limit to sire l
variations between two products compared in a similarity analysis?
- t' a
l-
o I
2.
Summary of Technical Findings for.FY83 Activities During FY83, Sandia consultants participated in NRC, RIV inspections to ten test laboratories, eight irradiation facilities, six manufacturers which perform qualification activities. (some~of the manufacturers also provided
.qu'alification services to other companies), and two NSSS vendors.
Several of these facilities were inspected more than once.
In this section some of'our findings during FY83. inspection activities are summarized.. The list of findings is not intended to be all inclusive.
Rather, the intention is to illustrate some current industry qualification practices that might be improved by. inspection efforts.
We definitely do not wish to imply that these findings are applicable to a'll the facilities inspected during FY83.
For some inspections, we cnly had positive findings.
Our second reason for summariring the FY83 findings is to identify and illustrate areas where additional NRC regulations
-and guiK4nct,vould be helpful.
Many times during FY83 we had technical ' concerns that: were dif ficult to justify from a regulatory standpoint.
Examples are highlighted during our discussion.
Dht start our list of findings by discussing examples of Qualification Stratecies.
f Oualification'Stratecies 1..
One company announced that it did not perform qualification tests..
Rather it performed research testing on its products several times to assure itself that particular products were appropriate for marketing to the nuclear industry.
It then summarized relevant research results in reports that " established" qualification.
The reports certified that qualification-efforts were'in accordance with relevant IEEE standards such.as IEEE Std 323-1974.
The research. tests. however.
were net performed according to test plans (a requirement of IEEE Std 323-1974). nor did the research test documentation satisfy the requirements of the IEEE standards.
The qualification reports also did not l
specify how research. test results were chosen for inclusion in the qualification report.
After examination of research files, it was established that the company.had summarized in some cases its best demonstrated performance as the equipment capability.
-Product specimens that had degraded' earlier in the accident simulati^on were sometimes not mentioned when research summary qualification reports were written.
~
u l._.
s 2.
Another company started to qualify a product line by testing five different products in that line.
By completion of the test program, four of the products had substantially degraded.
A qualification report was written describing only the successful qualification of the one product that did not degrade.
A second qualification report was then generated arguing that other members of the product line were qualified by similarity.
The degradation observed during testing for four members of the product line was never discussed in the similarity report.
Interestingly, the one product that successfully performed throughout this test had substantially d'egraded during previous qualification attempts.
These previous efforts were never mentioned in the qualification report.
The qualification test parameters had been successively changed until qualification success was achieved.
3.
Demonstrating functionability of terminal-b)ocks for one year after the start of a LOCA was the goal of another qualification effort.
The test profile specified by the "tesY plan was less than two days in length.
Arrhenius techniques were employed to argue that.this short test was equivalent to a one-year exposure.
The elevated temperatures specified by the Arrhenius calculation resulted in a test plan profile that was superbeated for the duration of the test.
Hence, moisture films which would cause current leakage on the terminal blocks would evaporate in the superheated environment.
In contrast.
most of'the postulated one-year accident exposure was at saturated or subcooled moisture environments.
The actual test performed did not satisfy the test plan profile: it did include saturated steam environmental exposures.
4.
plant specific environmental profiles were used by one facility to generate test requirements.
Transient ramp times and irradiation dose rates in excess of current state-of-the-art capabilities were specified.
The facility wrote test plans specifyi7g that testing with regard to these parameters be performed cn a best effort basis for that facility.
A survey of other test laboratory capabilities had not been performed (at the time of the inspection) to establish the industrial norm for current state-of-the-art qualification testing techniques.
5.
One company employed another company's qualification report to argue that its product was qualtfied by similarity.
Manufacturing process similarities and
-S-
L 0
~ differences between the.two companies was never
, addressed..
Interestingly, the referenced test included fouritest Specimens,.two of which failed the acceptance
. criteria. 'These failures were not reconciled.
-M 6.~
An 80 conductor cable was qualified by testing single" conductors only.
f 7.
Eleven products were tested during the 1970's using a simultaneous aging and accident environmental simulation test..
Ten:out of the eleven products failed to satisfy the_ acceptance criteria.
One. product passed the. test.
Subsequent ~ to'this test, sequential testing techniques were employed 1by the. company to establish qualification.-
The test engineer asserted'durin,g the NRC..RIV. inspection that the test was performed for engineering,information purposes only; there was do pending qualification requirement due to a purchase order'.. etc. :.the simultaneous test was not repeated; and
-the company does not certify to a simultaneous test 'ou t
.~,,to.4 sequentialftest.
8.
fTriaxial cable constructions were qualified without demonstrating or. discussing the importance of electrical separation between the two concentric shields of the triaxialicable design.
9.
A triaxial-cable ~ construction experienced electrical l
f ailure' during'several qualification type (research?)
tests.
Each of.these tests employed a thermal aging-irradiation-steam test sequence.
Thermal aging exposures,of-7. days at 150*C, 29' days at-120*C, and 83
' days at 110*C vere' successively employed during
. qualification; attempts..Each qualification test resulted-in electrical degradation.
The failure mode.
as1 described 1by the manufacturer:
thermal expansion of 1
'the dielectric results in' extrusion of the insulation
- through the : triaxial. metallic braid.
During aging, the extruded dielectric is.oxidired and upon cooling does' not contract to its. original position prior to the
?
- thermal exposure.
The non-extruded dielectric, however, does contract, producing voids in the insulation.
To
~ overcome this problem, theLeompany performed a
-qualification test.that-aged the cable insulation core
~before it was manufactured into a triaxial cable.
After therma 17 aging; the metallic braids as well as jackets were manufactured and irradiation ~and steam exposures
. performed.
The cable passed its'specified' electrical s
^
' acceptance criteria.and was certified as qualified.
The
-manufacturer did not demonstrate that unaged cable (no
a thermal aging nor irradiation) Lould not experience the previously. observed failure made at the start of a LOCA environment where 171*C t_emperatures are postulated.
- 10. :During a qualification test for a pressure switch (to be qualified for an out-of-containment application that might experience pressure and steam environments), the internal volume of the pressure switch was vented to the~
outside of the environmental pressure chamber employed o
for testing.
This was accomplished by enclosing the
. pressure switch electrical interface and wiring inside metallic tubing... A pressure boundary at the interface was not fabricated.
The technique is used to eliminate apparent failures caused by connection or lead wire failures.
Choosing acceptable qualified interfaces and lead wires is' typically the responsibility of the.
pressure switch user rather than the nanufacturer.
In this particular example,-the use of metallic tubing without' appropriate interface seals eliminated the possibility that leakage through the pressure switch 0.hous.ing would cause pressure buildup inside the switch the backside of the' pressure diaphragm and change its at setpoint.
The aboventen " Qualification Strategy" examples illustrate several important points for which additional NRC guidance may be useful:
1.
. Frequently a manufacturer'will perform more than one
-test on his product and/or-inc.lude several specimens in a single test.
Must all test results be noted in the qualification report.'or-may~the manufacturer be selective in which test results are documented for qualification purposes?.
Wh'at criteria distinguishes
'research results from qualification test results?. This
~ issue' frequently arises when a manufacturer performs a generic-test in preparation.for marketing of a product.
When-product sales are. successful. the generic effort many times forms thelbasis for the plant-specific qualification. documentation.
2.
To what extent can po'st-accident acceleration techniques
-be used to-compress a one-year accident requirement into a manageable experimental' test?
Is there a minimum
-accident exposure period: say 10 hrs. 15 days, or 30
-days, for which a postulated accident must be simulated prior to-performing acceleration techniques to-simulate the remaining portion of the accident?
N'.
1 e--g'+
er m
g ag -
e p.et ewe-y
+--e e.
y**--'ei-w de--em pew
--e-w s
i i'
s 3.
How does one establish " current state-of-tne-art" qualification' capabilities?
Many manufacturers and test laboratories consider their test capabilities and practices to be proprietary.
~
4.
What limits are appropriate for similarity analysis?
Can another manufacturer's procuct be referenced in a similarity analysis?
Is there a limit to size variations between tv,o products compared in a similarity analysis?
',s In addition to the " Qualification Strategy" findings, there were many implementation, design control. and test control findings during the FY83 inspections.
A few examples are summarized below for each of the categories:
Inadequate Instrumentation, Calibration. Conflicts in Data or Analysis.
Documentation. Review, Prototype Testing, and Test Plans and Procedures:
Inadecuate Instrumentation:
1.
One manufacturer l employed a' 7-day circular chart to monitor simulated LOCA temperature profiles.
This instrumentation lacked resolution to demonstrate compliance with steam ramp times specified by customer specifications.
This manufacturer also did not have instrumentation to monitor the chemical spray flow rate and pH nor equipment to monitor the electrical energizing and.functionability of the product being qualified by testing.
2.
'A manufacturer employed thermal aging ovens for qualification testing but did not have instrumentation to" continuously monitor the oven' temperatures.
~
3.
During qualification of a temperature sensor element, tne accuracy of the element was monitored during the-accident irradiation exposure.
(An acceptance criteria
~
fwas' established in the test plan for this measurement.)
'7he thermocouple junction of-the temperature element was e
enclosed during manufacture-inside a vented stainless 4
steel tube.
In a radiation' environment the tube will heat to a higher temperature than the surrounding
. ambient air, possibly leading to inaccurate (and unacceptable) temperatore readings for the temperature
-element.
During this qualification test, a reference thermocouple;was. employed.to monitor the ambient air environment.N This thermocouple was also enclosed by a stainless ~ steel tube Unich in this case was unvented.
s 1
s
,-r r,
's
\\
k %
@q M5_p:
n ; q 5. y
~
z.
N 1' Q; _
q 3
Hence its temperature readings were higher than the measurements generated from the " qualification" specimen.
The. reference thermocouple" device chosen for this application was inappropriate.
Calibration:
1.
'one irradiation facility had no procedures for calibration of equipment.
The QA manual did not require calibration ~to standards traceable to the National.
-Bureau of Standards.
There was no provision in the QA manual for hand, ling equipment subsequently found out of
. calibration.
This facility also did not have any.
requirements for maintaining I'ecords of calibration.
2.
A manufacturer. listed in'a qualificaricn report thata a temperature tontroller had a range of 100-400*F and an accuracy of i-lt.
During qualification tests, the controller was used to monitor temperatures above
/t_
400*F.
During a previous' test, the controller was shown
,,t'o.b.e out of calibration by 20-30*F for temperatures
-between 300 and 340*F.
The controller-was not
~
o
_frecalibrated prior to. subsequent tests.
3
/- Econflicts - in3 Da ta or Analysis:
1.
Inspection of a company' yielded several examples of
" conflicts in data." including:
~
a.
Several' examples where st'eam profile ramp times were reported in test qualification reports as achieved
- in shorter times than actually acco'mplished.
For example, one report. includes a figure illustrating that a'100*F to 440*F' ramp was achieved in 10 seconds.
In contrast, the test file notes' indicated that 3 minutes vere required to heat from 300*F'to 420*F.
b.
A qualification. report indicated that product specimens were thermally aged prior to irradiation
. and rteam exposures.
The test data file indicates
- that-these specimens were nqver thermally aged.
The file also indicates that these specimens functionally failed 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> into LOCA testing.
. Post-test measurements were satisfactory.
The
. qualification' report never mentions the tect f.ilure.
F
~ '
J d.
)
i s
_a
=.
Documentation 1.
A qualification report for one manufacturer was written
'in 1981 based on experimental data obtained in 1976.
The data file did not include a listing of test equipment nor of calibration.
The report contained data sheets from an unknown source which were unsigned.
The report stated that the samples were irradiated at 1 Mrd/hr but the irradiation certificate stated that the average dose rate was 0.55 Mrd/hr.
This irradiation certificate is dated 1979. but the qualification data file implies testing was performed in 1976.
A second qualification report for the same company was in narrative form and contained no list of test apparatus and equipment.
The irradiation certificate of compliance was not auditably linked ~to this qualification effort.
It covered 43 test specimens but there was no positive identification to the six samples used for the qualification effort covered by the report.
2.-A test plan required that certain measurements be
~
performed for engineering information only.
Raw test
~
data indicates there was a failure during these measurements.
This failure to meet test plan requirements was not documented in the qualification report.
The data and related files contained no evaluation and'justifi'cution for the exclusion of this data from the test report.
An internal company memo which was made available indicated that the manager of quality testing had been instructed to remove this data from the. test report.
3.
One facility experienced'several deviations and anomalies during a qualification test program.
These included broken subcomponents, subcomponent operational failures, and replacement.of subcomponents during qualification testing.
No nonconformance or deviation I
' reports were generated (as required by the facility's QA program) to document these events.
A final test report was not written; the qualification effort was stopped
-and redefined as a research activity.
~4.
A facility decided to reorient a product during testing i-and to readjust the setpoints.
No nonconformance or deviation reports were found by the inspectors in the project file.
During'the same test program. gaskets for a second product-were replaced with new similar gaskets L
l provided by the test sponsor.
Again, no nonconformanre or deviation reports were generated.
._,-.m
-,_m
I Review 1.
A facility's test plan was reviewed for adequacy by a staff member other than the author.. The test plan indicated that the author employed the Arrhenius method to calculate thermal aging requirements.
In actuality.
the Arrhenius technique had not been employed.
Nor had all the-subcomponents susceptible to thermal aging been identified in the aging analysis.
The-reviewer did not note these discrepancies.
The facility manager indicated that the reviewer was not technically Lqualified.to evaluate aging' analysis data for this qualification report.*
PrototvDe Testinc.
1.-
A company issued a qualification report for one of its products.
The test samples were produced prior to the company.finaliring its production materials and processes.
For example, part of the test specimen 3 production was performed by another manufacturer because of " problems."
A material used in the construction of the product was changed after production of the qualification test specimens.
Four months after the production-of qualification specimens, manufacturing status reports indicate that some steps of the production process to date have not been satisfactory.
LTest Plans and Procedures 1.
At one facility, a nonconformance report describing test
-anomalies was-generated three months prior to the approval of the governing test procedures.
3.
FY83 Activities During FY83, the Equipment-Qualification Inspection (EQIP)
Program; participated in 40 NRC. RIV inspections of qualification.
test efforts'and facilities.
.Each inspection typica'lly involved a Sandia staff member participating as a technical consultant during a week long inspection effort.
-For four of these
-inspections. NRC employed two Sandia consultants rather than f.
one.
Two inspections were.also' combined into a one-week effort.
Hence. EQIP's FY83 activities involved 43 person-weeks of
-"on-the-road" inspection support.
-In contrast.'FYB2 activities l
_ involved eleven. inspection trips.
-Table 1 summarizeu the inspection activities performed during FY83.
i t
I
['
In addition to the.40 inspection trips Sandia personnel
- participated in several additional EQIP activities These included:
technical reviews at Sandia of four qualification test plans; participation in three EQIP program reviews with NRC. RIV staff: preparation of a NRC Form 1.89 for the EQIP Program:
periodic preparation of program status reports, and attendance at a seismic seminar.
O e
@D, W
4 m
l l
l I
. ~,. -.
Table 1 Sandia Consultation During NRC. RIV Inspections FY83 Sandia Rati Comoany Participant October-19-21 Acton Environmentalt Testing J.
Let2 Corporation October 25-29 Wyle Labs, Huntsville L. Bustard Movember 15-19 Isomedix J. Benson November 29-Southwest Research J.
Benson December 3 November 29-Limitorque L.' Bustard December 3 December 13-16 Georgia Tech J.
Benson e..
January 10-14 NTS. Saugus. CA J.
Benson January 17-21 Wyle Labs. Norco E. Minor January 24-28 NTS. Hartsjod. VA J.
Benson January 24-28 Westinghouse. Forest Hills L.
Bustard e
February 7-10 GE. San Jose L.
Bustard February 14-18 Bailey Controls J.
Benson February 22-25 Conax Corporation E. Minor February 28-BIW Cable Systems J.
Benson March 4 March 29-Wyle Labs. Huntsville E.
Salarar April 1
-April 4-7 Neutron Products J.
Benson
. April 11-15
-Westinghouse. AESD E.
Salarar April 18-21 East-West Technology J.
Let:
April 18-20 GE. San Jose J.
Benson
' April 25-29 Franklin L.
Bustard May 3-4 International Nutronics E.
Salarar
i Table 1 (cont.)
Sandia Consultation During NRC, RIV Inspections Sandia Egig Company Particicant
- May'4-5 Radiation Sterilizers J.
Benson May 24-27 Radiation Technology E.
Salazar June 6-10 Rockbestos L.
Bustard June 13-17 Farewell & Hendricks B.
Bader June 13-17 Process Technology J.
Letz June 20-24 Rockbestos L.
Bustard /
J.
Benson June 27-Wyle. Huntsville E.
Salazar July 1 June 27-Acton Labs F.
Thome July 1 July-19-20 Nuclear Qualification J.
Benson Services (NQS)
-July 26-27 Westinghouse, Forest Hills J.
Benson August 8-12 Wyle. Huntsville E.
Salazar August 14-17 Rockbestos L.. Bustard August 22-24 Radiation Dynamics B.
Bader
' Au gu s t -~ 2 4 - 2 6 Farewell & Hendricks B.
Bader-August 29-BIW Cable Systems L.
Bustard /
September 2 J.
Benson 2
' August 29-Westinghouse NTD E.
Salazar September 2 September 19-23 Westinghouse. Canada E.
Salazar September 19 GE, Valley Forge P.
Bennett/
L.
Bustard September 26-30 GE. San Jose P.
Bennett/
L.
Bustard
4.
Financial Information
-Table 2 summarizes EQIP's costs for FY83.
These costs are
-estimates based on Sandia's Cost-Budget Report.
Travel costs do not_ fully: reflect FYB3's actual costs because of billing delaps.
All figures are rounded to the nearest 1K.
Actual costs are provided by invoices sent to NRC by DOE.
Table 2 Estimated Fiscal Year 1983 Costs I.
Di' rect Manpower (man, months'
'27.6 of1 charged effort)
II.
Directed Loaded Labor Costs 235K Material and Services 4K Computer (ADP Support)
Purchases.
3K Travel 35K n..
Total 277K Table 3 summarizes EQIP's projected costs for FYB4.
These projected costs'are estimates only.
Some variations in program level of effort may be required because of industry. scheduling, significant changes in qualification technology. or significant unanticipated trends in industry and research test results.
Table 3 Projected' Fiscal Year 1984 Costs I.
Direct Manpower (man months 42.0 of effort)
II.
Direct Loaded Labor Costs 392K Material and Services Computer (ADP Support)
Purchases 12K Travel 65K Total 469K p
N-J
~
,,-r v.,--,, -
.~.-
--n-..-
e DISCUSSION OF SANDIA ITEMS Executive Summary (Page 3)
' Items 1-4 of this section are addressed in another section of the annual report.
-Qualification Strategies (Page 4) l Items 1, 2 and 7 pertain to SNL: Concern 2B on page 6 of the enclosure to SECY 83-457C,'i.e., " Type testing reporting does not ensure full reporting of L
- all test results". The NRC response is on page 7.
(Inspection Report Nos.
99900283/83-02, 99900277/83-02, 99900277/83-04 and 99900921/83-02)
Item 3 is addressed under. the category of " Qualification Methodologies Have Shortcomings", on pages 2 and 3 (bullet No. 5) of the enclosure to SECY 83-457C, i.e., "Under what circumstances is the Arrlenius methodology for accelerated thermal aging valid?"
The NRC response is on page 4.
(Inspection Report Nos. 99900902/82-08 and 99900902/83-01)
. Item 4 is an unresolved and open issue at one facility.
(Inspection Report Nos. ' 99900911/83-01 and 99900911/83-03)
Item 5 is addressed in Inspection. Report No. 99900283/83-02.
Item 6 was a finding in a recent Rockbestos inspection which will be addressed in the company's response to the RIV. inspection report (No. 99900277/83-04).
In' general,' 10 CFR 50.49 allows the qualification of a multi condutor cable by testing a single conductor cable, however, analysis must be provided by the licensee / applicant and addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Item 8 is addressed under the category of " Design Bases (Acceptance Criteria)
Have Shortcomings", on page 6 of the enclosure to SECY 83-457C.
[SNL Concern 2.A.(b).] The NRC response is on page 7.
(Inspection Report No. 99900277/83-02)
Item 9 pertains to a Rockbestos inspection-finding referred to on page 8 of the enclosure to SECY 83-457C.
The NRC response is on page 8.
(Inspection Report No. 99900277/83-01).
Item 10 is' addressed under the category of " Design Bases (Acceptance Criteria)
Have Shortcomings", on page 6 of the enclosure to SECY 83-457C.
ISNL Concern 2.A.(c).]
Points Requiring Additional NRC Guidance (Page 7) (Executive Summary items)
Item I is SNL concern 28 on page 6 of the enclosure to SECY 83-457C, i.e.,
" Type testing reporting does not ensure full reporting of all test results".
The NRC response is-on page 7.
s d Item 2 is addressed under the category of " Qualification Methodologies Have Shortcomings", on pages 2 and-3 (bullet No. 5) of the enclosure to SECY 83-457C, i.e., "Under what conditions is the Arrlenius mcthodology for accelerated thermal aging valid?" The NRC response is on page 4.
Item 3 does not constitute an NRC concern. - The staff position is that if a testing facility deviates from a test plan or procedure, justification must be provided by the licensee / applicant.
Item 4 raises questions that are addressed by current regulations and standards which allow qualification by similarity. analysis.
In all cases, justification must be provided by the licensee / applicant.
In addition, due to the variety of equipment designs and types, it is not practical to provide generic guidance to cover all possibilities which must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
The remaining items of the report constitute inspection findings in the categories indicated, each of which was identified in the inspection report indicated below and in some cases were highlighted in I&E information notices.
In all cases, the inspection findings involve followup and closecut by the Vendor Program Branch.
, Inadequate Instrumentation 1.
Report No. 99900277/83-01
.2.
Report No. 99900283/83-01 3.
Report No. 99900911/83-03 Cal ib ration -
1.
Report No. 99900903/83-01 2.
Report No. 99900277/83-01 and 99900277/83-02 Conflicts in Data or Analysis 1.a. Report No. 99900277/83-02 1.b. Report No.' 99900277/83.
Documentation 1.-
Report No. 99900277/83-02 2.
Report No. 99900277/83-02 3.
Report No'. 99900904/82-07 4.
Report No. 99900921/83-01 Review 1.
Report No. 99900921/83-01
. Prototype Testing 1.:.
-Report No. 99900921/83-02 Test Plans and-Procedures-1.
Report'No. 99900921/83-01 9
4 4
(*
i I- '
i o
[.-
u i.
l
(:
. i l -
I
--