ML20204J465

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards QA Program Insp Rept 99900509/84-03 Concerning Nonconformance Re Seismic Qualification of safety-related Category I HVAC Ductwork for Millstone 3.Qualification Addressed in FSAR Question 0210
ML20204J465
Person / Time
Issue date: 03/13/1985
From: Zech G
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To: Holahan G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
REF-QA-99900509 NUDOCS 8504250040
Download: ML20204J465 (1)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:March 13, 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Gary M. Holahan, Chief Operating Reactors Assessment Branch Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Gary G. Zech, Chief Vendor Program Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor, and Technical Training Center Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement

SUBJECT:

STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION (SWEC), SEISMIC DESIGN QUALIFICATION OF HVAC DUCTWORK FOR MILLSTONE 3 (MNPS-3) Stone and Webster Inspection Report 99900509/84-03 discusses a nonconformance concerning seismic qualification of safety-related Category I HVAC Ductwork for MNPS-3. See enclosed inspection report, Appendix A, Nonconformance A. Qualification of HVAC ductwork and supports was previously addressed by NRR in Question No. Q210.33 (Section 3.9.3) of the MNPS-3 FSAR. IE will keep NRR and Region I informed of additional information concerning this finding. If you have additional questions please contact R. McIntyre (X24508). ORIGutAL SIONED BY: gLta Merschon C0T Gary G. Zech, Chief Vendor Program Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor, and Technical Training Center Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosure:

Inspection Report 99900509/84-03 cc w/ enclosures: DISTRIBUTION: B. Grimes, IE .AEB:IE:09 (99900509/84-03) R. Starostecki, RI VPB Reading R. Heishman, IE DQAVT Reading J. Youngblood, NRR JWCraig E. Doolittle, NRR RMcIntyre D. Lipinski, Resident Inspector g 1 90t~ k fDh VPB:DQAVT SC/VP8:0QAVT PB:DQAVT 0 %p \\ RMcIntyre: sam JWCraig GZech 2/t1/85 2/27 /85 f//3 /85 \\ \\ d 8504250040 850313 del PDR GA999 EECSWE gV 99900509 PDR a

i[*%, UMTED STATES i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

  • j j

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 e g / March 13, 1985 D:cket No. 99900509/84-03 Stone and Webster Engineering Corp. ATTN: Mr. R. B. Kelley Vice President, Quality Assurance Post Office Box 2325 Boston, Massachusetts 02107 Gentlemen: This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. R. P. McIntyre of this office on November 26-30, 1984, of your facility at Boston, Massachusetts, and December 10-14, 1984, of your Cherry Hill, New Jersey, facility, and to the discussions of our findings with you and members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection. 1 The purpose of this inspection was to review the status of previous inspection findings, your Quality Assurance program in the area of computer code verifi-cation, pipe support design calculations, and various reactive items. Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of an examination of procedures and reprqsentative records, interviews with personnel, and observa-tions by the inspector. During the inspection-it was found that the implementation a,f your 'QA. program. failed to meet certain NRC requirements. In particular, we are ' concerned that evidence did not exist at the time of the inspection that the design of safety-related HVAC ductwork for Millstone 3 considered the effects of the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). Additionally, as discussed during a February 15, 1985, telephone conversation with Mr. F. B. Baldwin, it is not clear whether i the HVAC ductwork designs for other SWEC designed plants are similarly incomplete. I We would urge that you expedite your efforts in resolving this matter and that l both your customers and the NRC be advised of the results. The specific findings and references to the pertinent requirements are identified in the enclosures to this letter. Please provide us within 30 days from the date of this letter a written state-l ment containing: (1) a description of steps that have been or will be taken ~ I to correct these items; (2) a description of steps that have been or will be I taken to prevent recurrence; and (3) the dates your corrective actions and j preventive measures were or will be completed. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown. fd m-Dp

~ Stone and Webster Engineering Corp. March 13, 1985 The responses requested by this letter are-not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you believe to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary that you (a) notify this office by telephone within 10 days from the date of this letter of your intention to file a request for withholding; and (b) submit within 25 days from the date of this letter a written application to this office to withhold such information. If your receipt of this letter has been delayed such that less than 7 days are available for your review, please notify this office promptly so that a new due date may be established. Consistent with Section 2.790(b)(1), any such application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the information which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a full statement of the reasons on the basis which it is claimed that the information should be withheld from public disclosure. This section further requires the statement to address with - specificity the considerations listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4).. The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room. Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we wi.ll be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, Gary ech, Chief Vendor Program Brcnch Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor & Technical Training Center Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement

Enclosures:

1. Appendix A-Notice of Nonconformance 2. Appendix B-Inspection Report No. 99900509/84-03 3. Appendix C-Inspection Data Sheets (25 pages) ,a

i l APPENDIX A Stone and Webster Engineering Corp. Docket No. 99900509/84-03 NOTICE OF NONCONFORMANCE Sased on the-results of an NRC inspection conducted on November 26-30 and December 10-14, 1984, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in accordance with NRC requirements. Nonconformances with these requirements are as follows: A. Section 3-1 of Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) Standard Nuclear Quality Assurance Program (SWSQAP 1-74A), Engineering and Design Control, states, in part: " Design control measures shall be applied to seismic, stress, thermal, hydraulic, and accident analyses and associated computer programs, as they apply to the development of design inputs or as they are used to analyze the design" and " Design adequacy shall be verified through independent objective reviews by individuals competent in the subject activity. These reviews may include the use of alternate or simplified solution methods or qualification testing, as appropriate." Contrary to the above, SWEC was unable to produce documentation for the seismic qualification of safety-related Category I HVAC ducting, as identified in drawing FSK-22-10 and specification MS.2170.430-560 for the Millstone 3 plant. B. Section 4.5 of SWEC Engineering Assurance Procedure EAP 5.25, Computer Program Documentation and Qualification, states, in part: "The Qualifi-cation is intended to demonstrate that the computer code does what it is supposed to do and that the program adequately solves the intended problem" and that " Qualification shall be accomplished by one or a combination of the following methods: Manual Qualification Comparison Qualification Empirical Qualification" Contrary to the above, numerical results determined from several finite-element analyses and used in the qualification of the computer program PITRIFE, were not qualified according to the procedures described above. W O(2 0 D /0 4

ORGANIZATION: STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS y REPORT INSP_ECTION 11/26-30/84 INSPECTION N0.: 99900509/84-03 DATE(S): 12/10-14/84 ON-SITE HOURS: 180 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Stone ind Webster Engineering Corp. ATTN: Mr. R. B. Kelly Vice President, Quality Assurance Post Office Box 2325 Boston, Massachusetts 02107 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. F. B. Baldwin, Assistant QA Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER: (617) 589-6566 PRINCIPAL PRODUCT: Architectural engineering services. NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Major active projects include Beaver Valley Unit 2, River Bend Unit 1, Shoreham, Nine Mile Point Unit 2, Millstone Unit 3. In addition, there are approximately 50 modification / repair / service contracts. The aforementioned contracts cover work performed in the Boston, Cherry Hill, New York, and Denver offices. ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: f /[f(C Kkh f g R. P.' McIritire, Specjbl Proj. Inspec. Section (SPIS) Date OTHERINSPECTOR(S): R. Pettis (SPIS) S. Sadik.(EG&G) 1(r itzei (EG&G) M B nister (EG&G) / APPROVED BY: K k/h Af[ Craig, Chief, SPIS,\\.9PB Date i INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE: A. BASES: Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. (SWEC) Topical Report No. SWSQAP I 74X and 10 CFR'Part 50, Appendix B. B. SCOPE: The purpose of this inspection was to review the follo. wing items: 1. Status of previous inspection findings; 2. Verification of computer code PITRIFE; 3. Pipe support design cal'ulations; 4. Computer Service c Bureau Contracts; 5. Seismic Category I HVAC duct welds and dect qualifi-cation; 6. River Bend electrical items. PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: 50-322, 50-410, 50-412, 50-423, and 50-458. 'W O{\\ i }h f i

ORdANIZATION: STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP. BOSTON,. MASSACHUSETTS REPORT ENSPECTION NO.: 99900509/84-03 RESULTS: PAGE 2 of 9 A. VIOLATIONS: None. B. NONCONFORMANCES: 1. Contrary to Section 3-1 of Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) Standard Nuclear Quality Assurance Program (SWSQAP 1-74A), Engineering and Design Control, a seismic Category I HVAC duct was not subjected to required design control measures nor was design adequacy verified. 2. Contrary to Section 4.5 of SWEC Engineering Assurance Procedure EAP 5.25, Computer Program Documentation and Qualification, the computer code PITRIFE was not fully qualified. Numerical results used by the PITRIFE computer code were not qualified according to this procedure. C. UNRESOLVED ITEMS: 1. Due to time limitations and confusion over the current revision status of Reactor Vessel support calculation No. SR002 for Millstone 3 the NRC inspector was unable to adequately review this calculation. This calculation will be reviewed during a future inspection. D. STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS: 1. (0 pen) Nonconformance (84-01): SWEC failed to take adequate corrective action after audits identified major and recurring conditions adverse to quality. Not inspected this inspection. l 2. (0 pen) Nonconformance (84-01): SWEC accepted only the test report as evidence of qualification. No test. plan was prepared for Boston Insulated Wire Company specification 2412.400-255 and 2412.400-257; therefore, the SWEC evaluation did not include the review of the test plan..the "auditable link" between the specification and the test results. Not inspected this-inspection. t l 3. (0 pen) Nonconformance (84-01): Neither Boston Insulated Wire Company test plan nor Report B915A addressed the performance limits i of failure definition (acceptance criteria) where multiple cables of the same type were tested and one or more cables failed. There-fore it is not apparent that test requirements were met. Not inspected this inspection.

ORGANIZATION: STONE AND WEBSTER ENGlNEERING CORP. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900509/84-03 RESULTS: PAGE 3 of 9 4. (0 pen) Nonconformance (84-02): An error in the use of SWEC computer program PITRIFE was documented only by means of audit observation number EMD-024. The audit observation was closed upon evaluation of the effect on calculations for the Shoreham project. Error notifi-cation was not made to the user's providing design activities on other projects. SWEC is presently evaluating the effect on calculations for Beaver Valley 2, which is the other project with significant use of PITRIFE. 5. (Closed) Nonconformance (84-02): Responses were not received from all users of SWEC computer program STRUDL-SW (ST-346) for error notifications 80-1 and 82-1 prior to closing out the notification. SWEC has revised EAP 5.25, Computer Program Documentation and Qualification, requiring the sponsor of a computer program to document his basis for naking impact determination on previous program use with less than all user responses to error notifications. 6. (Closed) Nonconformance (84-02): SWEC failed to include the require-ments of River Bend 1 specification 211.180 in certain purchase documents.for 3/4" 0.D. stainless steel (SS) tubing. The wall thick-ness required by Specification 211.180 was.109" whereas the purchase documents quoted.065". Two River Bend 1 specifications have been revised to c'hange the minimum wall thickness required for 3/4" 0.D. stainless steel tubing to.065". This was substantiated by an analysis of worst case conditions that concluded that.065" wall thickness is adequate for 3/4" S.S. tubing at the River Bend 1 project. Other projects either do not use 3/4" i 0.D. S.S. tubing or have specified only.065" wall tubing. SWEC also l performed a review of all Field Purchase Requisitions (FPR's) prepared l by the particular engineer who had prepared the incorrect (FPR's). No other inconsistencies or errors were identified. Personnel involved l in the preparation, review, and approval of FPR's were reinstructed to verify that FPR's and specifications are consistent. 7. (Closed) Nonconformance (84.02): A. potential problem was not entered into SWEC's problem evaluation system until November 1983 even though a potential condition adverse to quality was delineated by a drawing l reflecting as-built conditions dated August 1979 which showed a large i drop in the number of seismic hold down welds for the Main Control l Board at Beaver Valley 2. l l l { l

ORGANIZATION: STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99900509/84 RESULTS: PAGE 4 of 9 When SWEC reviewed and approved the August 1979 issue of the above mentioned drawing they were not aware that it represented a holddown arrangement inconsistent with the seismic qualification report. SWEC became aware of this problem in May 1983 and the project submitted a Report of a Problem (ROAP) to Engineering Assurance on June 9, 1983. The project then performed testing and calculations to analyze the as-built conditions and concluded that the as-built condition is adequate. This ROAP was evaluated in conjunction with another ROAP submitted by another project in March 1983. Finally an Interim Problem Report (IPR) was distributed to other projects to determine if this was a generic issue. SWEC has revised EAP 16.1 to limit the time allowed for evaluation jrior to issuing notification to other potentially affected SWEC projects. SWEC also performed an internal audit of the Problem Report System and determined that evaluation was not always being performed in a timely manner, and subsequently has drastically reduced the number of open R0APs to conform to their revised EAP. E. OTHER FINDINGS OR COMMENTS: 1. Computer Code Verification: During this inspection the development and qualification of the computer code PITRIFE was reviewed. In addition Engineering Assurance Procedure (EAP) 5.25, Computer Program Documentation and Qualification was reviewed and utilized throughout the inspection. SWEC EAP 5.25 provides the procedures for computer code qualifica-tion. Three types of computer programs are defined: Quality Assurance Category I, II, and III. Category I computer codes are approved for safety-related analysis and must be qualified for the requirements of EAP 5.25. The basis for verification is suitable coinp,arison with either hand calculations, experimental results, or other. computer codes. Qualification of Computer Code PITRIFE: The computer code PITRIFE, which was developed internally by SWEC, estimates the local pipe stresses resulting from loads transmitted through integral (welded) trunnion pipe supports. This is accomplished by interpolating numerical results which are permanently programmed into PITRIFE. The numerical results used by PITRIFE are determined from a set of finite-element analyses. PITRIFE interpolates these values to the geometry under consideration, scales the results for input trunnion

ORGANIZATION: STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99900509/84-03 RESULTS: PAGE 5 of 9 l loads, and superimposes loads to determine the local stress state in the pipe. The total piping stress intensities are determined by PITRIFE by combining these local stresses with the results from a standard piping analysis. The total piping stress intensities are compared with allowable intensities to evaluate the piping near the trunnion. The PITRIFE user's manual was reviewed. The manual was found to contain a thorough description of the code theory, its applications and limitations, the user supplied input file and an example problem. Some aspects of the technical basis for the computer code (nondimensionalization and sealing of equations) were reviewed and found to be technically adequate. The qualification package for PITRIFE was reviewed. A comparison of the user's manual with a verification outline showed that all sub-tasks were addressed. Verification studies covering: three methods for coordinate transformation into local PITRIFE coordinates interpolation of (Rpj k) variable R interpolation of (Rpf o) variable t local coordinate system trunnion loads maximum stresses resulting from permutations of trunnion loads were reviewed and found to be adequately verified against hand calculations. Thus the inputting, transforming, interpolating, and combining tasks were adequately verified. The end products of PITRIFE are total piping stress intensities. It's basic funct. ion is to interpolate between six stress fields that are hardwired into the code. EAP-5.25 states that all significant aspects of Category I computer codes _(presumably all aspects affecting the end product) will be verified. In this case, SWEC could provide no verification of the numerical results used in PITRIFE. One Nonconformance (B.1) was identified during this part of the inspection.

ORGANIZATION: STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT -INSPECTION NO.: 99900509/84-03 RESULTS: PAGE 6 of 9 2. Seismic Category I HVAC Duct Welds: This had been noted in inspection report 84-02 as an item to be reviewed during a future inspection. In September 1983 SWEC identified that certain seismic Category I HVAC Duct Welds at Millstone 3 were found to be less than full penetration as called for in the procurement specification. SWEC performed an experimental evaluation of representative welded duct samples obtained from the plant site. Thirty-five tensile test coupons were fabricated'and tested at the SWEC Materials Engineering Laboratory. A larger number of weld cross-sections were etched to characterize the weld geometry (principly the depth of weld penetration and depth of weld reinforcement). The test results and the method for determining the sample size were reviewed by the NRC inspector. While no method was available for predicting the minimum strength of entire ducts from the results of coupon testing, SWEC concluded that the test data are representative of the nonconforming duct welds. The testing and analysis performed justify use of a minimum yield strength of 24.5 ksi which is the value from the weakest sample. No violations or nonconformances were identified during this part of the ins *pection. This item, as identified in inspection report 99900509/84-02, is considered closed. 3. Seismic Category I HVAC Duct Qualification: The design of seismic Category I ducting should account for design basis events including the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) and design documentation should include records of design control measures and design verification. While reviewing the disposition of the duct weldments (E.2), SWEC was requested to provide typical design documents for Category I HVAC ducting. SWEC was unable to produce documentation addressing design adequacy of safety-related HVAC duct work. Further review of the duct design methods used at Millstone 3 found that all seismic Category I ducting was designed without documentation of adequacy for SSE. The conclusion is that duct stresses resulting from design basis events have not been determined for Millstone 3 Category I l ducting. In addition the design verification / review process did not review design qualification for appropriate design basis events. One Nonconformance (B.2) was identified during the part of the inspection. I

0RGANIZATION: STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT -INSPECTION NO.: 99900509/84-03 RESULTS: PAGE 7 of 9 4. Computer Service Bureau's: SWEC contracts out through various service bureaus for computer services including both hardware and software agreements. The NRC inspector reviewed the computer services contracts for Control Data Corporation (CDC) and Boeing Computer Services, Inc. (BCS). Included were the purchase documents and the SWEC Engineering Service Scope of Work (ESS0W) for these computer service contracts. The current contracts for both bureaus include provisions for compliance to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B and 10 CFR Part 21. The inspector verified that SWEC is receiving error notifications for t.he computer codes under the ESS0WS from both CDC and BCS. SWEC has Ferformed audits on both CDC and BCS in 1984 and has been performing these audits on a regularly scheduled basis. The NRC inspector reviewed both the audit reports and the follow ups for CDC and BCS. No violations or nonconformances were identified in this part of the inspection. 5. Pipe Support Design Calculations: A recent inspection on the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2 (Fermi 2) by NRC, Region III inspectors raised a concern regarding possible generic deficiencies in pipe sdpport design calculations performed by SWEC. The inspec-tion activities relating to pipe supports were directed toward determining if any such generic deficiencies were indicated in the work on other SWEC projects. The Nine Mile Point Nucl-ear Power Plant Unit 2 (NMP 2) and to a lesser extent Millstone Unit 3 were reviewed for their pipe support design activities. l In response to the previously mentioned Region III inspection report, SWEC Engineering Assurance (EA) recently completed a comprehensive evaluation of pipe support design calculations for the Fermi 2 plant. The NRC inspector reviewed the final audit report for the purpose of determining what types of deficiencies were recurring. This information was then used as background for the review of NMP 2 calculation (. Portions of the NMP 2 Main Steam,'High Pressure Core Spray and l Service Water Piping Systems were chosen for a detailed review of j pipe support calculations. All of the piping stress analyses reviewed l are classified as Quality Assurance Category I. The piping stress analyses were used as the source of support loads for the pipe support calculations. An indepth review of selected pipe support calculations from the three systems mentioned above were performed. Review included verification of compliance to general engineering procedures and NMP-2 project specific procedures relating to

0RGANIZATION: STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING INC. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99900509/84-03 RESULTS: PAGE 8 of 9 preparation, review, revision, and control of support calculations. Considerable effort was expended verifying the correctness of numerical calculations related to support member stresses, support stiffness, weld design, base plate analysis and computerized input and output for computer programs such as STRUDL, when utilized. The results of the reviews indicate that the NMP-2 pipe support design calculations are being done in accordance with prescribed procedures and technically meet all applicable design codes and criteria. No indication of generic deficiencies at NMP-2 related to those deficiencies found at FERMI 2 was identified. Millstone 3 pipe support design calculations were also revibwed using the same basis used on NMP-2, but time constraints did not allow for a detailed review of any support calculations. Due to time limitations and confusion over the revision status of reactor vessel support calculation No. SR002, this calculation will be reviewed during a future inspection. See C.1 above. No violations or nonconformances were identified during this part of the inspection. 6. River Bend Electrical Items: An overall review of potentially reportable electrical type problems and the Deviation Reports (DR) from Gulf States Utilities (GSU) for the River Bend Project was performed. This included two DR's potentially repbrtable un' der 10 CFR Part 21, two DR's potentially reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e) and six DR's in varying stages of review and evaluation by SWEC. All of the DR files dealt with electrical problems and the last six involved electrical wiring damage and/or their terminations. These files were reviewed for their compliance to the SWEC Problem Reporting System using EAP 16.1 as a guideline. Also EAP 16.2, notifying clients of potentially reportable deficiencies under 10 CFR 50.55-(e) and EAP 16.3, identifying and reporting defects and failures to comply under 10 CFR 21 were referenced when applicable. During the review it was noted that the elapsed time required to determine reportability under 10 CFR 50.55(e) for those problems identified in late 1983 and early 1984 was in excess of that allowed in EAP 16.2. Also until July 1983 SWEC failed to comply with EAP 16.2, which requires them to notify Gulf States Utilities when additional time is required and to provide a date when the SWEC evaluation will be completed.

0'RGANIZATION: STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP

  • BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

~ N0 99900S09/84-03 R SV S. PAGE 9 of 9 SWEC recognized their failure to comply with their procedures and has made p: ]gress on evaluating delinquent DR's and has provided GSU with anticipated completion dates. Those problems reviewed by the NRC inspector that were identified in late 1984, were evaluated within the procedural time requirements of EAP 16.2. No violations or noncon-formances were identified during this part of the inspection. l l O 5 m h I i

PERSONS CONTACTED STORE h WEBSTER Dates 1i %-3o /g4 company Docket / Report No. %CICOSU)!89-03 Inspector N M'lNTYEE ENTf2.A4 CE MEET t4 C, .Page I of I NAME(Please Print) TITLE (Please Print) ORGANIZATION (Please Print) %90sb /$ Y T/V h&'idt dEX'V/S0 A-$k S(x}([L GERYL L eQJ sius ni Fasmes-Eva Ase susee S4Pvew L S/Amm /hcicf ~Pamer 6%wc.m swec. ol4 AJ Co r4 B F Ss't b9sE F-i d sv2 us l

  • $u)FO P/,7 p/l//

Dsecb i/ Esc 9 n*m.<j SigE' < ' 4 J(Jrieinn A % nwa Cu.c w s u,. E m O Siuec W,IG dek /%d Gpae,- EA su)k P u w a.c k rt-Pui n. ( ass-m t~ec kkA2 ao /N l1 A-lMJn A f f/2. C#([ A s l* D P " ' Y $Y bitAins& 44/SC,a fi3 Klav Ids % CN swec ~

3. 0, Ms An'/lbffnos/SrFN b &,2 Ft' r

d e i l l l

PERSONS CONTACTED t(so(84 Company BTO14E WFRSTER oates Docket / Report No. 99900609 kM Inspector f MGLCCWE Ex.tT MEETING Page l of I NAME(Please Print) TITLE (Please Print) ORGANI'lATION(Please Print) $ERVed 5A9/k hostrinpovr- /(ArHiec ofg,ec. $2Avt l JMIA> Set fMCIA>G2,e /GA Sa)$ C. 0nnwb$kERV' Suf. EN. hubfY bSa6t<a SkJCT f4J#24% de~~ A"A' &3de Gen 0du.g 1/'f !Oia. 6A Teu/C R s. y;;g a p,/ fas,a ~ w

rwrc YITJAz/a.di a A kW S% d C.

T),4. Veduyare av coib= mc r>vm .s,wec bo H./0 M 5s,- O ste 7 b G l.ee. sos 6 u; E- (L oo Mi%F l 8 > ENsIg. car /L-PE - /3vps 2_ sw e c. l T STbr Arc >il0$u( fM_b CO3 F e & b hi

  • ~ E Ottk (Mnnt & 0 5(A.)[ C Y

/2 as. A n -n10 2ur-b,9.n. %a 2(. 0277/S t/2 2Als/WcroK NLC 9 e i l l l

PERSONS CONTACTED DTOME k 65TM '5o/84 Dates Il '2to i company Docket / Report No. N O O !64-0.3 Inspector (2. Md-I.vTY@ Page l of I NAME(Please Print) TITLE (Please Print) ORGANIZATION (Please Print) M[OAnne/ M. MMde -.EAP J)t/@- &L dMWS X / blVdmEdiC- [/Y SU)8 C bb kXLY SWAS/eb'! Sol (0k-Shh!d.

foeste, 8psw EMb AEA2> EN6Z.

-S d v/ f FEAa lL V6 M4 5b d55'M / "6 Cr?_- bN5 d- ]),j. fan / DrYstM' /9M WD-M EM Fid2-T / 7/M.LockA8>' Emo.wflin't ro/2 swsc L.h 8 ucl\\om Em0 Suf eN s s o e 5w Et-Wk c>*1 n P/2weins c 5 w a e-tu. M. hhE Orid&My Eh stO[(_ U ftJ L ~ s -,8 w -. En Swen M B Stst. son 0 Asl1slanf Gie/e%dur4m <a swec. T 3. L ETblOA EN (> weTil - L:A CwEC -I, k; 3; - E s vi; / w - i:.:. n ud G N && mL n,3. - nn s yee e 9 e l l l --y

TEE 5Od3 QyqTA[f)) //[29 [gg $TodE &E857E4 Q Pgrre 9% eFoe /91+3-r M C4W E D@T T sTt G %te.k \\h A: --- EHD Lvtws t.. ) %.. E q x i978 ^' Mr' LUDDV' EMD MsCM Eff. E 3 r&! /3, /).ss m e d yn>% - Na Me EMp DES /GnEA O 9 e O e w +-, e- ,-m-- p u,r-e, gr, e, w,, ,ow,-, e- ,-, -, - ~, ,w~,- ,,,,-,n,--m ~e

P!sts0ftS CONTACTED apasw nkae YSSY ek Dates _ ///S7 - Hjre ska~./Li~. L No.999N C;b9 lPA -Ok.. Inspector $. 86 TAC \\ Page l of l EfPlease P-int) TIT Uf? lease 'M nt) ORGANTISTION(P esse P=in-) kho ffff Y .C4 $dN - h h $4)EC G L Jnsesx> sxwm - EA-gum C i di. G w eaaween-sua sn swee. , AlA%sres> couran . c:o twec

A A z ~Arkh

/a A sm, s.;, M. S w e c. lEF 7isr*?_ EA- % ~ * *ta. .se *^ Zw,ucMay .r m w n /l - E n o .rie r c. u \\ # 1. # E k s n ArstiskJ Sums,Mor es,,w

u s.w.c.c.

^ K. Awunes o br.+- ens w -r ::.sMc,swem i, x , /!dk .%a.s, max-n wac. 1 Id'C %.cs ow, C~nnet L4TlES <<mevuot swe ~a a~+ stose D A YAnibtA hva A9fr;tMsgrENd.. Beb $WSCt. 6fs/.ly sp,e. ;ny e.E/ M aWsa. e g i er rYiN: l O [ '. e l i 1 I ,,n, ,,--,. -~~------ -,,- n 0

DOCUMENTS EX AMINED DOCKET N0. @q @ gg b l.(GTyg INSPECTOR: REPORT NO. M_g SCOPE: PAGE l OF 4 E DOCUMENT NO. REV. DATE DOCUMENT TITLE / SUBJECT I TEoc-E.AP_ 5.25 1 5/itM E4aEEti% AsSvanocE bceAmo [EAPN, (m, T ~ Pcgram Dow-~%%n ufL hkRmba. Blzs)s4 D2 AFT of fleu 2/coe L TWow Ain nn %I Z %c EA P-5.25 a am3ccmy 7 d , Iso e4 6 92.vreess4~alv93 / %o. coot,_ q u,# o,,0,(wo 3 en+ Foe _ M M sTouc- :; /Fe w w h N P. 4<o

  1. ,h?@

6 6/ev P,pc 3v2wr You g$ay / ce_ta/ N tIkTcwem 4 ers 6 Ao A B,f4o. E 4 B -c 2 0 dals A >osT~ Abs r.A ion f o PIT 42r FF 6 ow, ne-za nIe/as P;m e s=>vFoa Aan essa w w 940-a4 tolrt/8f DAv4a wvue -ro un Eirer,/ 90c inh.- 7 lm Trov s4-o7 e PD E-B-2 Mr z,b/&a hM prAs For Pahsw sp4-^ i karbox aak %FwjA fitoa G u rt2rl t w Tn Cc 2 >. 9 Pb E-B -en 35W B/sleo Po Foo cociren +MnJ,oon- [ soF71saae to/.O to oTii e.ssoa; rao. Mozg ( 7 Wea h u~se,Nooi,, % o,-oF b,c h com.o,ftw NULC_Y:% lt\\tb loa >TDo( D A-o f09p T

  • TYPE OF DOCUMENT DWG

- DRAWING INM INTERNAL MEM0 LETTER SPEC - SPECIFICATION LTR PROC - PROCEDURE dUt - OTM IL QAM - QA MANUAL P.O. - PURCHASE ORDER

DOCUMENTS EX AMINED DOCKET NO. 999 6g9 f INSPECTOR: (H@gg REPORT NO. g_g SCOPE: PAGE 1 0F 4 NEM {E DOCUMENT NO. REV. DATE DOCUMENT TITLE / SUBJECT l ( OTH E55naf r40 T4o2sA BN.95 Anoe4;num,Alo K. /coan tren 1-00aes u// erse &le+ Muo< Teener / %) 12 r$r B4beo em s m m non Vdt dDMVTYL MGlcFS [9 G& DC) l IT 'i9 [BI 80. Ett off_.CcWeb Senfice s m Tn hiuA 13 PO _ 8-B-17 T83 ) YMJ trt St2.r/v6 181c. ($C M oTH 3u'D Ubg izM/si EssEu; Foo hoinw) es b,M GoGdr[65 5 t }N c>Tet 1I' 9 % DA3)UN Wo 4 TD E55ow Alo SulpeA-562SB 1k) W hk.f'679 O M PAlr,taAr*rl's r, h v4hanc ku del t>F0N'erh at t l AcMou t%,wx oh Gaute: wees Feom Bc5 i 0 hh Y~T lOA 9 4M p & 68L4aLV Ir/ % st4eo'.43 % k k k ht/e 3 R%eneb 2esposWe % c t Me'ptY L e u f E h-h N St4/ b 17 /E)a4ONA V/Vt/d% kb (q 52AM 5"'$ D7 6 $flIN s bu) $rwaap Nuclegt, 61A P W WT4/ ~# Peo w n e st a r Dee v4:eepI ~

  • TYPE OF DOCUMENT i

DWG - DRAWING INM INTERNAL MEMO SPEC - SPECIFICATION LTR LETTER PROC - PROCEDURE cs - ~ riTM QAM - QA MANUAL g4 - 9.gon(2,4 P.O. - PURCHASE ORDER

l i ~ DOCUMENTS EX AMINED 00C m No. gmq INSPECTOR: T M( _.L uT W 6' j REPORT W %g SCOPE: PAGE T OF 4 MEM { {jE T DOCUMENT NO. REV. DATE DOCUMENT TITLE / SUBJECT 20 ?D l2560 - Hots Sfas[r1 20. 6it t5e. or 6wLpYoe. ce,sre u}e tZk CPc. l%M MvAw kn n\\an+ % nueSe 64 E Es560/ M. r ZI cXH v7mso -actsA. o{rl 71 Bu6tt Setovo Scoo. r McDW / Cons.+e^stoues) l tverk couTM DArs coap. l 11 wM sqlssg-Nok W(L-sonz suaoGa 2 / waveh.>are. wm j ( I 0 0 4 0 co o rs20 t 9 45 T w o t9i7 z3 cm 1te-scra t m z R n rorn h u /auaoon% we.. Z+ on+ 4l*tlet tomatimo6lem D*Fher Rcsaws /Ross how iA?nosa e q iar e t P M e-t se /PE/NamuAx4&ss d3tlet eTH i orn tolt/sef y [PE / Frct&oa 72 @T DZZ TAsicso. 4leb fePorcc 6 Q%NE /wuv hm<a nf 496 V: ~ / ~' lend CmTEPS I 26 lhM M-Kn 3ssa finn i, Ha wTuu. er 460 0. toA3 concree x ~

4. %

h tiv R rh ble ucc)AL tocFe 57Ls%)

  • TYPE OF DOCUMENT INTERNAL MEMO i

DWG - DRAWING INM LETTER SPEC- - SPECIFICATION LTR PROC - PROCEDURE ofd rsru QAM - QA MANUAL g-pgfwp-r P.O. - PURCilASE ORDER

DOCUMENTS dX AMINED DOCKET M. %@@ INSPECTOR: h dCroT926 REPORT M. 84_o3 SCOPE: PAGE 4 0F 4 [d'" NU$E DOCUMENT NO. REV. DATE DOCUMENT TITLE / SUBJECT t6.i N19 \\oCFfL7: DFMT~ SFt5MIC Masinr5 Of 486V 26 \\MM a L640 MTEQslMdmone Upu~r 3 30 LTll = tolulM Sauec. To tak 06n R As oF DEFre r XT Mal s%E 3 l PAET 2) P9_16p r 9l Inut ,helu S&cuabsrs l2e_oipu,a oF Possible anerc. .v. t 49 ahvi *FTASK O22_ av oTHet2 P/440s f 3L g c.aug g_ g a. m z[nfer its Cow +n-serou<ee; J PPo.,PAM trre sucfoce ' s +oSWEc Folt Co D VelAP3/ mad I MOf DEFECT E'EPo2r M / t4 @#A 344 4-Fes 93 Lo6- ~55)64 SOFTh)Al?E Ochlen 2Fi%7a FRDM CDc Rol?_ 2){- V?T 34 f?T co"po+ct c&o Aus VS ST TPT 7IGl%4 WT'11 Jake 1%h% (lePri2T FRn+1 CDc-FoR j i \\ @ q sit E (L rDDE-A>>S Y s

  • TYPE OF DOCUMENT DWG

- DRAWING INM - INTERNAL MEND SPEC - SPECIFICATION LTR LETTER PROC - PROCEDURE E-GERff' QAM - QA MANUAL P.O. - PHRCHASE ORDER

h m N y c >i w s u r a a m 1 k Q b1 h D 4 g i R s u w l a ::- I 2 S e J o g t 4 } i i a 4 i s, e t x , e 2 em s *y 4 8 9 g 3 ee-a L 8=E 6 q J w e 2 o w ~ a m c s g a a o n y 3 w a e L 2 ? g. ~ k W N T 4 = g o g 2 8 4 4 4 e M 3 g i g l = 6 m E $ 5 $ $ $ $ 4 h 8 2 W w a 3 % M l l & e < c 4, s w

== zW - i-s 4 4 4 4 N / ss l y = g ,5 s li c x gg o e e a e d o q + a = o e o s $2 4 5R T V o 5 g g g e i 8 m 4 o a m 4 S G 3 G e v j j t g *5 o a 4 h s " E t = e ~s r e = u, s h Q 5 %wa I g 2 e eSEEW ve e ness w :- c .e o o c o e e 6 4 + 4 4 g gres: i i .. ?s s 4 4 $ $ 4 3 l a l a a l +l s s$ kg e r.es,s N e4 e(N

  • O

'd N oc W-S C d C t h 5

INSPECTOR: thS M REPORT NO. M- 03 / M [Udbtf-7 /$TfffS PAGE b 0F 1 SCOPE: i ITEM

  • TYPE OF No.

DOClMENT DOCLNENT NO. REV. DATE DOCUMENT TITLE / SUBJECT l[ DWG~ S2~ 7Z A ~& 554 & 3 C*b p* b h N % (ff [ M T /6 Dw& df 1 [ I] Dw(r $15 2.- v i it Azoc EM rP s & o 3/k/8' W N D %u '#8'i m *cxcu*ca*r w '.S 0 5 ed""* ' 1 Aao com e st-en l 19 htc I 2.1%-u P(6)-1-D.A 2. CA C v 'AT' OM 4Effrle ce5 ao (bc !? 2 f

h. o 2.

i >) Prb c. N hC NAH $ b l0'lph NESM 4) " frbreQsm F op-Co[ cql o,h j M MC @ 9 E ID O 9Eil F' &9 Siin Vacu m r3 -tu d i l A<s b4-se o or m asomved i a coco - 75 4 j$ @Pryte'$ [h70fe" d S h o 1N CAC Cec 4 7247 I N2d@ M' # P!1% l s (%c Ekp s 3 aWp c n a ~ ? i I l

  • TYPE OF DOCUMENT l

DWG - DRAWING INM INTERNAL MEM0 LETTER SPEC - SPECIFICATION LTR j PROC - PROCEDURE QAM - QA MANUAL / P.O. - PURCHASE ORDER

e = !!)llpil!$jiihit liip f i li '4 e i

.~
  • n 1.

<, h Ig,g F +t s [ 4 ds kk 3 I {l k [ f,1 j c

.t g e

=% h t s l !I k I {3 h l l-Q *x\\{. f I l$"I I*B gj uj t n t 5 a. 3 k y-3 *' g k llM U@th jd !l n I j w 'i g g t b i.d.i ~!il@4 9 1

d. t !
i. i.

i t 4 .,, n

l. k Ig gif
  • ] df g {3} f kl 5

k ! 4 i t . dixik k h nw n a uu u,, t i 'y I d I s'; .h (aeo$si 8 i p3 h O g @tt gds'hI E o I fa ric 19L .. 3!;i1 u in e! h$ k$nkm k= ! a , m _s ua ! i i ? +, m -1.m - me,

P h i i { i fi l I I k i 3; 2, g kd h .,I h {\\{ h I I i j j + i N% Y ml k} b is 1 g,e w e. 9 t<bl* s. =l p g g s p l ~ ol r n, l, e 4 ? n a f ,F4 f k p = 4 ~ g [ % I l lkh[h s l II . ~., 5 I d '4 1 j~ m ) T

  1. f~ i 4 f g 5 L

n e n kg M i b'8?aa TE IiE*gE s h-h e Ps1[ y asM o $ $hd I4b iweg

  • 9
    • e e

e en ese e, e o

PERSONS CONTACTED Dates 17./10 / 0 9 2bME k WE65YEE. /cHoc) I Company Docket / Report No. 961400509 / 64-o'3 Inspector T N ATA/T W E E.f4TRAn.EE., Pi4_E.TlMfr. Paged of l NAME(Please Print) TITLE (Please Print) ORGANIZATION (Please Print) %,b// %,sh< P.rac.de,JweRes es,6by:c /1,'h / ;l o L Esc.e.ses-l-i.,r asA.a /em z b tc= sun.e,u.. hson. e to e.c- )fla/Mb Byrne2 Ensweeiein /konste Sis et. 2), 6. (Al m 4 fao.f.E H.Fe2ws z-s&ts R n. s+mcl / %, r/ono7e c rc,,,,; a s wsc. ff h). CHAsl M&qsrx, wcr. pracieures k v. S pjge R/7Guaso Pieo r E A G m swec/ O. EMPll8 Proo Euss 6vupt) Sa/GC b//htAY 0/,TcA/ $// S W 2 T -! % /wr 3, M. SF) b .E4 5-ro vt s A AEC b:rw A (~ fC /A.)C 79 M o r. pr ( i? - Riv m A r a n ,nsr u 'J '- Y P2 n a r' Nnf> PKuff e e C-O A 34 )(L

0. h. A Yd I C}-l R6S Pl%3dcT G A dedk.,

-sc.o d C- $.I,b d D @ kh $e diow 6IW. S WC.C [ k kNSEoA-kJr.m MANA9;Est-Ek ElA/Ec2 e 4 J

PERSONS CONTACTED . Company 5Toge. L WE85rER (CHoc.) 4b4./84 Dates Docket / Report No. 9 4 9 M 9 ! % -f)3 Inspector 2/UEDt/ryps t Q[f ygg,7lg 6 Page 1 of l NAME(Please Print) TITLE (Please Print) ORGANIZATION (Please Print) p/,;/, A/iV2e L Ya a. S pec d a,- sa;sc k o /AffC '&nd/N bdnisk'r Prin up/Eivi-L=ci s I D //v,9 c $A.0Aws o /3e07G/]Guex.@j$$?) fa)GC ' 'b,A. $M W E A Su PEN d s it_. SMc W.4 COLF LetsX Dd MGR . S.e; C.5.LA/ LEAD EAG </cR siJe c_ - J. M L oAb h C, R 6.h. Ass a S u.9 c C SC ChavJ Bu '+D.s hnaw - EM D 5~w e c_. 3, C, G ust) P g o g ge r E n g nu g g e_ g.ivw u Q,-StdE(_ &* A. Fox. secs Assw. De<r..n Ma m.i-ens SWEc 'A/// l/I?mher-l?ln kc 5 vi AYh'

  • Se" 5EU 5G
n. %ba a a t,c ds ess s eo c w.c.

aeor w,= nm m s.,- a~an. cia s ~c e $ k }"I $ k b^ W/!W27 --- IlA/L5Y v G B.d ~ k.:/ c5A W W -2 Surc i ~ u ., ~ w . - o. ~, .v,;.=, a 6-E. M idA[ PW 1 Ic F~-< t. to nopt ' S M E C. (T\\T UILMBN Qh hol deEiUlb s%/8 % a e

PERSONS CONTACTED STo4 h WNM 12 / to _ tq / g q. Company oates Docket / Report No. 44900661[PA-63 Inspector E HGTYRc. Page l of 1 NAME(Please Print) TITLE (Please Print) ORGANIZATION (Please Print) ?AYmd&h JV h//f SMA. hAl- 0 /$ SLUf& 3A. Gr\\Aw] O Su ra v v g sit SteEC k nb M A/I6 @'t hd A Q A r>EFr - SEg h

50Ec,

$b $Addsa $toTIEA/SA/SA'. 3&c)2C (CHoc*) SCCited Ms 'f' DN M - - GN O Swcs (cwc.) J 4HI-daoJg $deel. L#1 LeJD eds edeea ( 'r?y?fb J afe c_ JAMEJ SUL L IVAd fAldC// 4 L GdG A Gurd SW Er, 0 w W e e l l

PERSONS CONTACTED 5 h)E~C/CH6C 12/n /g( o,tes Company Docket / Report No. 999 0 A M G4-03 Inspector <Ye 2d/ Page l of { NAME(Please Print) TITLE (Please Print) ORGANIZATION (Please Print) em-&ni4 6fMaA LN LEAD wsweer (dece 4swoq swec y3g2l TAinGs s u u t v i9 d P R I N c o / i. GaCHfEK WEC X W30 s @C S WA Clte w Acsb DP. Mamfu-EMD %=c-x 14w/ Y /Mu Cynd biit. Mgr - -EM6 NEC-X33rf f? gie 8j/qih f)c fh elp d E h y i h e ~ t: m D gwt-c n z c 2 <t 2 0 9 w d e e

PERSONS CONTACTED d 2'b f Dates /2-if C /J -N - W Company $ ano 1 4 Docket / Report No. 94MCS'(9 Sef -d-3 Inspector l1h 3<ttles,ler Page 1 of 1 NAME(Please Print) TITLE (Please Print) ORGANIZATTON(Please Print) 33yWE kl. Q2MPSG 4 LocadM L cdLoNEet 5 n,sr + w;r% T2rt - 000 LkiE E RIC2 L t< EM % t r4 E r4G.o u EEf-s Tc.J G $ G) E-85 t EL Le;f DAfnel. LecA Lk 64 SDec UH G Etc.T o d eencieet arc /coar e m g_ cu cc_

3. G L or de M9r 6se Assuvne, s w a c.

M, ke Galw a n 9ect M9r-MOA ben. Swet S w l d o = 6 S e 9 e e a 'I t sb. ' f;, 1t. _

u }.T ~ c 4g 2 T ( 9 " Q x n ,n m 4 1 j c$d @Wdh..]h } \\ .t k y e y '4 t $ Q ii f f % ) d.82 L l 2 t i d s1 e f f uj d }S} n h 4 4 A q .s s t + t Tt h a 1 A .R E h y R 3 3 'N N D i i i q y~ r j d f.i M (f 3 Ee a n!m i p f } d N b % ~ k l 4 el '$ J 9 l J i l ~ C 3 j a da w $ t z s a L 5 si I b 1 g4 p; q .F 4 4 2 h s N -8 x nG d!1 i b % +3 g 4 9 g gd m o 4.d vs 3 1 x = we i3^e k R N h& $ g e ~ Is m > d h R 65 o' E i s e o o "t $ 8 sa o st e ~ ~ ? ? w E E i A w n E n N 'N s. 1 $ G )y 3 E 4 4 4 8 k-g 4 5 e v s s A R I i R g 4- { g (a ( i = g i t w 8 8 =

i. g it k amm o m

5 6 m N 4 m a m =Esis -R E iss*5 m,- si

  • g g

4 9 G W e. y s y 9 x 2 a 8 88: 5: y 8 Es 0; R E 6 E $ $ d a B E E 0

  • t r

ewego m N$ hg t Q t cd tq 4 h a r-N b

D0CUMENTS EX AMiNED DOCKET NO. "797 ddgo 7 /f,'[g g,7.ZE4 l INSPECTOR: REPORT NO. 79-43 SCOPE: PAGE 1 0F 2. ITEM

  • TYPE OF No.

DOClNENT DOClNENT NO. REV. DATE DOCUMENT TITLE / SUBJECT M P C 1-5 v's, S//1/7/ Psc Sas&M / zes// - PSsr /o / Az. /f C n c. '278 -0o87 o V H PCZ $ YS. lS cmc 2 77f - o Z/ $ l s/zi/P2 f 5 &.f OthiAW 6_ zesp - Psspo 9=y J2 / i i i ~ l i

  • TYPE OF DOCUMENT DWG

- DRAWING INH INTERNAL MEMO SPEC - SPECIFICATION LTR LETTER PROC - PROCEDURE C4zc da n.c u s Arion QAM - QA MANUAL P.O. - PURCllASE ORDER

DOCUMENTS EX AMINED DOCKET W. @@M INSPECTOR: k MCTJTYWb REPORT NO. @e$ _. o3 SCOPE: PAGE l OF } [ $I$E DOCUMENT NO. REV. DATE DOCUMENT TITLE / SUBJECT Pfow po9e (E4pl,,/ % FREN I FIZO EAP 1b. \\ G, 6 seh. 662. AMo EmE CEPoET S Y STEM W62. A h % cE 2 ??F Avoer(2EpoEr I2/'?f84 b u 6 t v a n t.i,e TIP7 AUD/T ! h A/ FM kPacA rSysn ~ '3 V PT _ DPN VDAP 9 TAT')S 'tl2Dlt%- e%)1?oAP 6TWrus St)M4 MAQ Y l I2( TMAL / 31 Ter44. 1(!Z6[.$ h 4 EPT-8I

Na.vei iI4. ace 5

lN ra ea no. 7 i un zolet Ensrt4ssexauca e v a l u a +< c k o F 2 to. Fee 5 s (o m=c 2lI.IBo 2/n/f4 Feopver Fout Te<ht &miar.Jis Smr /5370su6 - / 1 S?ec 2A3. 000 D 2 n b2l% MKTG %L % facinoMS l Torr w 8 err ' 4t23 nblB3 bawbad 2 t>9,ma therwr [M M:U lW lvth n &, (Ali 'ltoA L NC b'8Cld WC NU IAIN 9 14n 14z4e 6 ///e+ (pe.-i zo B4p l(o.3.fb+ /2eomwe pul,m6u. 26 c 'il R3 1)so(84 6tdht. TD G30 / Io ernwss@ P valw%~ \\0 CrR-3 \\\\ EPT h$2 SY 3v\\Y M 6?Ect AL Euslucz.4ter, OP /_s26E 15npE. PrFG.St.Ppbt2T (Alcule-hous / F3aetco Feerai dA>rr 2. oTYPE OF DOCUMENT DWG - DRAWING INM - INTERNAL MEMD SPEC - SPECIFICATION LTR LETTER PROC - PROCEDURE M-12E7ePT QAM - QA MANUAL P.O. - PURCHASE ORDER

I

  1. j sll[n c

a v3 bE f 'E s E. q~.3 CN t 1 e a d a 6 4' f.j2 g i ~ 4 a w >d. S .a }d d % 4 48g ,a e c u u. r c 3iS ci 1 w - s'W s c) F s-4 e~- vS$ ceb 1 e ?af. eT 6 r v e 4 2

d. If y "7 '$-

31 d S ~ej$~agL pid a e 1 y = r c tI o egm a o 5 A s 3

2 swE5 8hp)02-t jt 4

1 3 -w N te*3 e c-se2o v m# 3 p u e.n 2 2 r 9s N-h i 3-3 $q 2 o 5 4 2soi>3 gEkn g E !m*1t2 dg ee 13 &$e 4 s -s 3 w e g s s,j a 13 0.y {, o 3: 4 w .g t g 3 s 3 z +1 3 e o e m s 2 m.y $ya$d5? }43$E31h fs}4 d' 2 t cc z G ggEE]3 L z E _ 1, MJ A 4 Je mar c n ww 2a ss v 2 7 -5 4 A

  • *a a e

~ ~ ~ ~ EE" O s- ~ m e e e g ~3 a TVK m P@d $~ G $ j' 5 fN$$5@ k g in a M E l$ y e T Ei r a w 2 8 ff L W I g dr g a h W e o 3 f 4 C 8 ~ e3 h O. N ,N g e$.ggg 5 e E Eiit3 015 cJ m-g B Eg d 880 g A 8 3Sg s HEh! y Es & g2de

  1. ~

E' 6fs e s hs r mes,s 3 N C' r$g h 5

9 s cc 8 s +1 f.s O l' J ^- ( L 5. pf M* f (i_ Q d[- lo M [ N-qw ( C go ) G 0% ci 3 a _4 c-14((W 4 e$x $if p w. g$ g F w 1 e m tu %E3-t Q u i-P t S 9 3se ge t {s T as e av 2 s s t aa a r AC ~[1 e u =m = G y s BE j @ ]' q 4 u 1 j v]-Y - ) e +a - <qo aa8 e c v is e o 5 8 1 4 N-8'a2 m e+2e d_.8 j+ 4 c z s t @_ b 93 ( \\, s o s 9 A a e- <,m 3 w a {s,,$ E *g-l $v i 9 m eg 8gg = 4 4 g 6 o-e-e 9 m %%6 n o Bsj z ec m =m3 aj@ e slii 3 ,n e ~" vf f 'i 9 11 a o = e 9 v e oo 6 W.m ses o Q i a 1 cJ t Q @asi 5we T 9 w a m e sS E w i i c e E I dd 3 ? @s 2 m i i o n e a e e e = s .s a t o 2

e5

) mm am = o = essu m c2 g 5B955 se i a s hh!

== eeo .. @ 3$$ 6b 3 5' 3 ae m j m m .gg amm,s $ ! !g &d9 kk N N ,N om

-I---NN- - - N Iliimi' --- F ..C \\ ( b h %p F a.t K 'f 4R i w iv c: % s. s* g, c = P$Y'i. Q* eN fE '4 4 y9 7 R t)? O' I 4d f did h k? i d w n a d e p# ( D+ t a N* 8 I E@ ff' l d 3 M 1v -{4Q "$ E 2 e h *, !! c'k !O i si ' s g! E 49 4 e 'i +

  • 4e W

i s

t. m a

b *ie 4 *g ; 4 e 5 e8 a o b -2c e st R. s c E gt EG 8=2 D t e eR s P"hi$+)]15 *e'ft! ! Te EE !:=R$*a:bw@m.b'% s R4E<t E t t a o = lt H g Q tu ~g (f-c $ t. s i g 8 Dii { Q'24) M 4T Qs

  • E E

PR G c s e o = =, 3 u E g r h

s.
  • x 'c'x'b d[

g 9V s b ki E dh f %f h N8a% 3f9dd< M pH.se bwi: H 3.$ ~ggy a! J :g gg e a 4 $RRR r f' 9 R a?* s. A 55 ~ 55 Y hiit904 6 it 4 4 m o o e e 4. ed r- '. seee 6 e gs O s ~ i s i i I i i a N o ,o g 3 e 6 6 I m+ g ~ mRm%d 4.- -5 i

w

~w ~ [ ry u. ig g*bdow 4 r i o

  • w n

5 2 2 tS

    • Et 4 g

[< r 4 4 4 t o t e o 5 ~ e m 8 (q w -2 5 g e y oo e $ 5eh tu tu W e a a 6 T E e

  • 4 5 sc8=W t

E EGdn5 3

  • 8e x 8 gr8<E D r$

d N &v ":N4d. [ b s E <$J Jf Y 4 [ 77777 s e a-1 3c( - ee te g e S c*s o r eS8 3s . $h5-r* m+ o r-o. e-S d C k E -s 4 l

60CUMENTS EX AMINED DOCKET NO. 999oogog INSPECTOR: W.C. 3Aunsrs A REPORT NO. R4-o3 SCOPE: C /,c r y y [;// - 3 / k/ PAGE 2 0F 2 f DOCUMENT TITLE / SUBJECT E DOCUMENT NO. REV. DATE I RB P locFR 21 Review Sch edu le I5 .End*i $4.lus 8ered 11-30-89 a,, J Sfnfus Re sef ~ D a maye d we re s on Lumskrgue MO Vs i I6 Fele-bR253 12-!3 84 i 10 CFA 50. SS (C) Condefrons of' Con sfruefron jogrm ais I1 LTR. RBS.- 95g 9 T-23-84 beGciency Reoevh -belav bufes far Eve /uat'ron.s i i I I I i i ) l i i

  • TYPE OF DOCUMENT DWG

- DRAWING INM INTERNAL MEMO i SPEC - SPECIFICATION LTR LETTER PROC - PROCEDURE QAM - QA MANUAL P.O. - PURCHASE ORDER .}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20204J465&oldid=4066142"