ML20205Q517
| ML20205Q517 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1986 |
| From: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205Q515 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8605300025 | |
| Download: ML20205Q517 (825) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:,
^^
% ^* _-
^^ - QL'y .2 c - as-w .. ,
N> Wr*C -l= : hdct8 6% W , &^l bA e l 1 F~ w : ~~lYA Yn- , TRY W J M& i Q A/ 6 d. SS/d , ]t4A 4. , A h Q 4 Tu sc. L " M , M a ~ m~4 mc He b W d' f L SA /S c. 5 5 E'2 & M I k g ,w e . J.v4 A A & Q L , M 4, p wt~ w swa a 1 M *L~ q d Q' rd. Em . 4 T .7 - , + 4 %
- m
.au u k .
- -+Mg, +; ,. .---<~
&p Oy M J z/_n_o <t >
v
&&ueN , & M di2%- : >
W % a h - & T*JGG -lo La, .s O b'M *"L*N % E. m ~~ newe CARDE85-59 PDR F0lA-85-59 e se
]
r . D s 9 -
, ^i
,.in. i- % u 1 + -6 q s a m ssea,.
y p AmO>,aah -b enep @ M 3 u 4 q--ft. & A / &c Lrre _ WA (A) W
y-v
- 4. Actions Required of TUEC TUEC shall submit additional information to the NRC, in writing, including a program and schedule for completing a detailed and thorough assessment of the issues identified in the following subsections. This program plan and its implementation will be evaluated by the staff before NRC considers the issuance of an operating license for Comanche Peak, Unit 1. The program plan should address the root cause of each problem identified and its generic implications on safety-related systems, programs, or areas. The collective significance of these deficiencies should also be addressed. The program plan should also include the proposed TUEC action to assure that such problems will be precluded from occurring in the future. The specific actions required of TUEC are described in the following sections. .
4.I Dn =cC'M Ta4y y ruccAJL % Q w m
& a/o MAi' ae.] farA &
~
& A.w +'g
=m w - So , f.5~ (c), (As - 1o2)
- 4. 2 .ha: a 6:-rp %
- rvGC D . W% n a>l--1x w i m/..A:.dd a rusc', n +;.,, p n. . aq Sc f J u y!_---o - e_;,- }
{n+s-: y- tLL -p---:bw a a.m:. +. w n>;4. m a rvec 6
,L.,
y 2.. M _i n ,3p - 7 -_ : -n M f1 'y <f ;ch &
&s u ruec sai a .at wmpn L.hA-%4Ap haad
'I O L w ... .m i gg a wsc D % &
5 4 ,w 3*%% ,A. ll 6&11-% myAQ
,tL. m ap =g!r.
c s a - u a .a.)
-rusc >Lu- w .eL ,b :n - a n r-m~ p7 1,,
a pcc w s J e + Q- x m 4 p . a.
% * &,sM A & hk.
A ym. (Ao-7.7) 2
- TUGC 5 ha A S W -l.S_ --- 4OC sw AQ & , e th & , n p s a 4 m
& M .c - '
& , 'T U GC D h-dy & l=-f=- 4
& S-lo y M u_e=+ s;- e J J- L
);s. - = J -a a w: -;
4 ,.i.i p 3aw g fA. (A a - 91) 4.3 R&,2d " MEK A L % w 1[wnso -ka], 4 zL wl-x z. a. ra. xx ma n. s. % s+ 1 m _ f, /98f ( A 4 - 3 7 4. S2)
- 4. 4 On 8%
TUEC shall initiate corrective action to assure that the scrap and salvage pile in the iroo fab shop laydown, yard is identified and sufficiently segregated and restricted to prevent access to and' inadvertent use of the material. I' , TUEC shall conduct a documented training session for those persons who prepare and process material requisitions to assure that information is entered where and as required and that the descriptions enable craft personnel to determine the quality requirements and establish traceability identification for the item in or on which the f abricated parts are used. TUEC shall conduct a documented indoctrination and training session for those foremen responsible for iron shop fabrication activities controlled by procedures CP-CPM 9.9, CCP-21 and ECP-19.
- TUEC shall review, evaluate, and revise the applicable procedures to identify the specification or specification requirements which assures that the threaded items comply with design specificatior requirements. /s typical example of industry standard identification of threads is given as 1-8"X6"L UNC CL2A, which provides a typical specification and design requirement for a threaded item 1-inch diameter, 8 threads per inch, 6 inches long to a national standard class of fit (thread intorforonan 09th a
l
. 4
. TUEC shall take appropriate action to assure that the return of unused or unneeded materials complies with procedures. The action may be in the form of an audit or documented surveillance. Although the noncompliance is identified as a singular event, the TRT noted that the site is ef fec-tively undergoing cleanup (consolidation of fab shops) and there is poten-tial for repetition of the noncompliance.
. TUEC shall initiate corrective action by performing and documenting the site surveillances required by QI-QP-11.14-1.
. TUEC shall initiate correc,tive action to assure that the iron fab shop activities comply with the required document'ation: hanger packages, travelers and drawings at the time and location where the activity is h . . .
performed. p - TUEC shall initiate action to assure the removal of (or the identification and segregation of) the indeterminate material which is mingled with safety and nonsafety material in the former electrical shop laydown yard. TUEC shall identify and report the usage application for a treble hook on a 30-foot stainless steel chain fabricated in the iron fab shop identified p) as an emergency low fuel limit switch, ,
- 4. 6 dA% y
$4 pAes F~P- SS - 08 & s_23_ s& n - % &
- ;~g4Am m"~ =& +~
<.L -:a ,n,, - - Q .w y
,4c - 4 n ap ? .
T'A w w:~n----=4:=- D A w -*4 AAM L A a ,acL~ q_;7_-4 n p. A pf--(A & & yu-j,bu.L o*'3 ,i d L; , a ,4.w d - -p wr- - -+ ;-
@ , af.u a
& n a gm 4 net m- == =D -lL-t, u a c
, g , k e l b t Q & W lo **
-4 L Z d.hM K ty-Jg d u..A _ Lt _tX 16 shy klaT y1M & k & M a
W 9
*P a man,. r s .
4 f
% y.Lw c p-op- t 9. 5 -(. k1.1~ Qun.
g-.n gh . 4 p +u#9 AAu1 (Aa w-5w
<c 6s& y) 4.4 /Ven fwmL ruce M + -tL- @ & .y- M4 y a tk~r i :
A R a T0Ec a 84R HeR & 4 -tL. hWA A o. - 34 a Aa - 36. . [TtJdYo & G P. Q P- /h.0, b ./4, M W upm n + s ace m p (u -sa)
& w; w a cs.7
[-
~
acx,..:.a.i. m O 4 .- p y '
.. r- Q -;
b &Ayn -h in 4w=.+-nz k w -t- cy& 4L - sM k M}A u.
'q ..-
m .]
& & d i - & t'. / d. 0 , fu. If QL-Jbk i e a- ,
;x: q s tqf:
s - w + n ..... An asa - - a x arc ~ p s A m Q . y&- A , L ~ ~ *- m - W ~ m & 2.I,s.1.2 J 3.2.l~ Q
-k u p
- aces .]
nnuM [Nat? w - q ye & ab+- e -&- w Ao r a ,Aa a ...t,-- a _ y - +. q _ % w w
& h .4 -th w aqwsb e pum.c w
_ w e l
& -M^ -'- & W db 0A e g'Y~ k W muy& L -+L~ & A de _M,, 4 -_;1( L))_ w iv b + 4 .h :
i) & MM @ uh ; 2.) 4 mym
-tL-WL 9 L+ uce
=L m L /.
a -u y .s_ _- p a) M QA 4 zL Sc m (is-ss, an,nr pw (M - 3o .x d) A7 NM
% + &a ruec D w zL- A _
q s - m en.~ ~~ y y.4 a. q
,M .du e._. n_w & L xd. m y aw . . t t.
& M M y _- m m s eg p - a M .2 ab t4 wo w)
- s- <.
4.2 oc w -
. Pn -A y i qam, rarc a w~
A s u s.. n a n.u A. m:x me
# .- - h '(d. .
. s 'I. *
~taAy A pnmt ,a 4 x ym ,& ,(b) & 4 m L :1 & -tLr-tL 21 m s ut .s a, e d e/ a C c) -ele y <u.~3A p- o w h /
Wh M A w. A M b Mp
,&. tn., rk. Oae a n=_.A ( .4 AO-3Sp)
. f~r .sut? _-we (?,)/
(Ao 4)
)
- 4. 9 d) A W
. L L i a s w +-tL FM A
#4A //r/rs -/. m.c. h (roec.). (sa-ia0
;?+-Ay M,rvecM m ~ y 6 .e- - 4 ~/.=w q.14- ,%,
M omk TUEc b & @ M4
% m xLetA MAM Wkmdw & a h ~ ,
._ h j 1%Lc_ofdw. (. h o - 4 6 i v.) _
L sssa A y eml&c ^1, ka-sts. t % -,sz). [2.. . mp - # - j-14A d.e a m - p n a;n p;ry,&.
- - l w 4-
-- 4-eye 4 A # A W y 4 W y a-Ak q A ch &-2A]
%w ca s, 4 uwQ [u:c h 1 q ~.
g a ~ s u n ,4~
.Mn9h % .
( A 4 - /33) D a 4 y a - 4 4 .] .
i 4.10 b 82
. A m y..s p a _ a n.ra et 2, inC m u o. 4 . n dort. fnq .
T,],/[d S V p & Q[A19-Co]s_ -- g Ap & ib -m A Zd>- As-s W M ^'^ 5 4 Q m;&D A g!- + Q-M qW+'.
. fp,:L Q ,e k ~w & k k & Q TUGC o g d =y & _
g p A f J.a M M k- W % " ygu 4a A-A
;. x a y . .s . . . ( M - soy Before loading fue-1 in Unit 1, TUEC shall complete 11..-
following:
- a. Determine the effect on continued seam integrity resulting from lack of documentation of the second inspection for cleanliness of plate-to plate seam welds.
- b. Determine the validity by ultrasonic testing of a sample crf all pool and canal field (water side) welds. This sample should be biased toward floor welds,
- c. Measure the plate thickness in those large areas of liner surf ac e grinding liner by ultrasonic testing to cetermine if the remainine material meets the minimum thickness requirement specified in specification 2323-SS-18, " Stainless Steel Liners."
- d. Determine the location of welds af fected by (a) and (b), and the thickness of (c), above, evaluate their effect on liner integrits ,
and recommend appropriate corrective action.
Since it is assumed that the refueling cavity liner in the Unit ! Containment Building and the underwater transfer tubes were constructed using similar procedures, the refueling cavity in the Unit 1 Containment Building, both transfer tubes, the fuel building pools Jdd canal, and the refueling cavity in the Unit 2 Containment Building shall be included in the evaluation. -
~
(A4-:5 h'28) 4 h6h /d el 1 -/w a Qw -.s zLb,Q M _;-Q L[QM w 4 & mm. roec a y a W w_s_. : 4 g;eL & ,gMc 'yk { & 4, u ~y, am A-t. - r, m u, -
, a a ~ .. x . m-an G
o [', ./ Docoment Name: ~~'-~ ' COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3 Requestor's ID: LO Author's Name: , Workinder T.R. -
^
,f' -
Document Comments: - CRESS PH-2/77
' (*
," l{ -
s y
-L ,
b i I, 1 e o 9 l t [ I l
t Document Name: 1 COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3 FEB 191*.5 Requestor's ID: PATW Author's Name: workinger Document Comments: 2/15/85 keep cover sheet with document e e b O a h
- h. ..
j 1 i l i l I i e
- I i
l l 1 i ! t
* * ~~ . m _.
3.0 SUMARY OF EVALUATIONS 3.1 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) Group 3.1.1 Scope of Concerns and Allegations The concerns in the QA/QC area relate to Appendix 8 to 10 CFR Part 50, " Q Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and' Fuel Reprocessing Plants." The principle issues pertain to (1) design process, (2) document and record con-trol, (3) training and qualifications of QA/QC personnel, (4) inspection and audit practices, (5) material traceability, (6) fat rication practices, and (7) as-built verification inspections. The 124 QA/QC allegations and concerns were grouped by similarity of issues into the following 12 categories: I
, Category 1, No. Sub.iect Characterization of Concerns end Allegations
{ 1. Design Process Design alterations not properly verified, i design dr.awings altered to reflect as-built conditions, and design change analysis not i performed. $; 2. Document Cont.rol Document control centers understaffed, . design changes and drawing documentation inadequate, control of documentation 1 i packages inadequate, partial document pachges issued for field use, ccmputer l design change data bases not current, documents lost or destroyed, operational 1 travelers not submitted to authorized 2 nuclear inspector (ANIS) for review, and i ANIS accepted deficient documentation packages. 02/15/85 3-1 I COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3 i .
v Category No. Subject Characterization of Concerns and Allegations
- 3. Records .
,, Unauthorized changes and deletions, records lost or destroyed, and not stored in fire proof vault. j, 4. Training and i Inadequate training, QC inspectors not quali-Qualifications i fled, cheating on certification exams, [ - inaccurate training records, and document control clerk's received no formal training. 4 SA. Repair, Rework,.
; Undocumented repairs, rework, disassembly and Maintenance 5
- assembly; interchanged valve parts, missed i
maintenance, QC signoff without verification, and delayed repairs. J
; 58. Onsite Fabrication ~
Components fabricated without procedures or QC inspections, work performed without docu-mentation packages, and documentati,on process inadequate. t r SC. Housekeeping i Cleaning procedures inadequate.
- 50. Nonconformance i: Nonconformanca reports (NCRs) initiated, pro-Reports cessed, controlled, and dispositioned improp- ~
- erly; NCRs voided by interoffice memos, delayed corrective actions, NCRs disapproved
! and destroyed, and uncertainty about when an NCR was required. SE, Materials
- Loss of material traceability, improper
~
upgrading of material, and downgrading of safety related systems to avoid inspections. I
- I l i.
i 02/15/85
- 3-2 COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3
V Category No. Subject Characterization of Concerns and Allegations
- 6. QC Inspection Misuse of the inspection report and deficiency disposition system, inspectors told to ignore problems, and interference with the inspection function.
- 7. QA Scope Inadequate management commitment to QA/QC program, audits and auditors not independent of areas audited, QA audit function under-staffed, vendor inspections inadequate, inef-fective followup on reported deficiencies, and ineffective personnel exit interviews.
- 8. As-Built Inadequate post construction verification program, as-built deficiencies, and inade-quate final QC inspections.
--w EachoftheQA/QCSSERcategorieslistsandcharacterizesallhftheconcerns raised in the allegations. In some instances, the QA/QC Group, during its evaluation of an allegation, discovered a new concern unrelated to the original alleration.
These new concerns were also evaluated and assessed in the appropriate category. On January 17, 1985, the TRT preseted at a public meeting the QA/QC Group - findings, without proposing specific TUECcorrective actions. Rather, TUEC was requested to avaluate the TRT findings and consider the implications of these findings on contruction quality at Comanche Peak. In addition, TUEC was requested to submit to the NRC, in writing, a program and schedule for completing a detailed and thorough assessment of the QA issues presented. The principle findings on issues are presented in separate SSER assessments, which are summarized below. l 02/15/85 3-3 ' COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3
y - 3.1.2 QA/QC Group The QA/QC Group consisted of 24 reviewers, four NRC employees and 20 consul-tants, who, collectively, represent over 300 years of engineering experience (both nuclear and non-nuclear) in general design, construction, fabrication, inspection, project management, and regulatory activities. This group spent severalin depth. program months at the Comanche Peak site and examined the const 3.2 Findings for Design Process Issues ., The QA/QC Group found that changes to design drawings and vendor certified - drawings were made in accordance with procedures and were supported by adequ technical reviews and design verification. 3.3 Findings for Document Control Issues The QA/QC Group found that, prior to the year 1984, there were numerous recur-ring administrative and procedural errors in the document control function. Many of these recurring deficiencies were identified by internal and external audits. But there was little follow-up or verification by TUEC management that corrective actions were taken, until early in the year 1984, when the DCC monitoring team was established. However, the document control system had sufficient checks to ensure that the design packages issued were for the most part correct and current. The , current document control program, with an i estimated error rate of between 0 and 4 percent, was found to be adequately staffed and effective. Although there is reasonable assurance that final QC inspections and acceptance of completed work was performed in accordance with the latest versions of design drawings, the potential for issuing incomplete document packages to the crafts existed, and the QA/QC Group found indications that the latest version of draWngs were not always ussd for electrical inspections. t The QA/QC Group also found that TUEC did not document and review identified deficiencies within the OCC, nor report the identified deficiencies to the NRC 02/15/85 3-4 COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3 : C
8 as required by 10 CFR 50.55(e). Only deficiencies identified by the engineering disciplines were documented and reviewed for possible submission to the NRC as 10 CFR 50.55(e) items. (See Attachment 2, QA/QC Category 2.) Of the 30 allegations and concerns pertaining to document control, 12 could 1 not be substantiated and 18 were related to procedural errors or administra-tive flaws in the document control function that, for the most part, were subsequently corrected. The QA/QC Group concludes that the concerns identified have no safety significance. 3.4 Findings for Records Issues
' With respect to the 11 allegations and concerns pertaining to records, the QA/QC Group found that 8 could not be substantiated, and 3 pertained to the loss of construction, fabrication, installation and inspection records, which were subsequently found, reconstructed, or replaced in accordance with approved procedures.
The QA/QC Group concludes that the concerns identified have no safety significance. 3.5 Findings for Training and Qualification Issues - The,QA/QC Group found inspection deficiencies (as enumerated in the electrical, f civjl,andstructuralSSERs),whichindicatearootproblemwithinspection qualification, that is directly traceable to TUEC's and B&R's " minimal require-9' ment" inspection certification program. Although the ASME personnel training . and certification program, as establisned by TUEC and B&R procedures, met or j exceeded the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6, Regulatory Guide 1.58, and SNT-TC-1A-1980; in practice these guidelines were not followed. The program, in practice, followed the " exception to the rule" and used "other factors" as the normal method of qualification. In the non-ASME training and certification program, the QA/QC Group found a lack of programmatic controls to assure that the program achieves and maintains requirements as set forth by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. The QA/QC Group also found that prior to August 1983, the document control clerks received some on-the-job training; but, no formal orientation or training. , However, following the issuance of Rev.16 to DCP-3, on August 5,1983, all 02/15/85 3-5 COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3
V - document control clerks received formal orientation and training and also were given a written examination regarding the procedure. The QA/QC Group did not find that all TUEC and B&R inspectors were unqualified. The inspectors assigned to the design change verification group (CCVG) were found qualified for their assigned task. Of the 19 inspectors who inspected some 2500 class 5 supports, only 1 inspector had questionable gu,alifications. However, 5 craft personnel who transferred into QC inspectiong had no prior - background or experience in inspection, and were found to have questionable qualifications. The craft personnel performing-prerequisite testing were found to be journeymen, or second class, craftsmen who had met the training and qualif,bation requirements for startup personnel, and were adequate 3 by system test engineers. The QA/QC Group concludes that deficiencies in procedural requirements and guidelines in the QC inspection training and certification programs have potential safety significance. (See Attachaient 2, QA/QC Category 4.) 3.6 ! Findings for Repair, Rework and Maintenance Issues The QA/QC Group found that welders follow specific written procedures that define the criteria for determining when defects require in process welding repairs and the required inspections for each type of weld fabrication. Weld repairs were made in accordance with repair process sheets, which define operational steps for making repairs. Unauthorized rework and welding were - documented with NCRs. Although isolated problems occurred, the QA/QC Group did not identify any significant breakdown of the quality control program. TUEC radiographed field welds on the AFW and CCS systems, even though the ASM Code does not require these types of welds to be examined radiographically. The radiographs were not interpreted promptly, which resulted in delayed repairs of identified defective welds, because there are no ASME acceptance criteri.a for welds that the ASME Code does not require to be radiographed. The identified defective welas were subsequently repaired, re-radiographed, l 02/15/85 3-6 COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3
}
t accepted,' documented and signed off prior to hydrostatic testing of these systems. The QA/QC Group found no other examples of extensive delays in the repair of safety related material. The QA/QC Group found that valve disc nunbers on travelers differed from those on data reports. However, this mismatch was only a nomenclature error. The QA/QC Group confirmed that the repair traveler system assures parts trace-ability and that the material removed from the valves was identical to the material reinstalled. Except as noted below, the QA/QC Group concludes that the allegations and concerns relevant to repair, rework and maintenance issues have neither safety significance nor generic implementations. The QA/QC Group also found that the valve disassembly and reassembly process has resulted in components being lost, misplaced, or interchanged. The QA/QC Group concludes that the failure of the corrective action system to adequately-address this recurring problem has safety significance because galling or even valve failure may occur if valve bonnets and bodies of differe6t pressure and temperature ratings were mixed. (See Attachment 2, QA/QC Category SA.) 3.7 Findings for Onsite Fabrication Issues The QA/QC Group found that onsite fabrication practices and materials trace-ability complied with applicable procedures; however, some nonsafety related ..I parts may have been fabricated based on telephone instructions. The QA/QC j Group also found that the iron fab shop fabricated items based on material requisitions (MRs), using a memo request or sketch, instead of the hanger package or traveler as required by procedures. However, the material issue, ,
' j fabrication activity, material traceability, and QC inspection N documented i in the MR.
Subsequent QC inspections documented the acceptability of the item in the hanger package or operational traveler. With respect to the other allegations and concerns, the QA/QC Group found that the items identified were in accordance with acceptable. practices or could not be substantiated. 02/15/85 3-7 COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3
The QA/QC Group concludes that, although there were procedural noncomp the items identified have neither safety significance nor generic implications . 3.8 Findings for Housekeeking Issues Allegations and' concerns relating to inadequate cleanliness controls during the early stages of construction were substantiated. TUEC's QA surveillance inspections reported a substantial number of cleanliness procedure violations which were subsequently corrected. , The QA/QC Group found that, although occasional infractions do occur, the QA program.for detection and correction of housekeeping problems is effective. Moreover, because extensive preinstal-lation and preoperational cleaning, flushing, and cleanliness verification have been acccmplished at Unit 1, the QA/QC Group concludes that the housekeepin issues identified have no safety significance. During the QA/QC Group's inspections at CPSES, two concerns were identified and brought to TUEC's attention. The first concern pertains to the number of swipe tests required by procedure FP-55-08 to assure that the reactor vessel had been adequately cleaned. The second pertained to an observation that not all s bers were wrapped with protective covering when welding was'done in
~
close proximity to them. @ (See Attachment 2, QA/QC Category SC.) 3.9 Findings for Nonconformance Reoort Issues ! Of the 19 allegations and concerns relating to nonconformance report issues,
--i 14 could not be substantiated by the QA/QC Group. Two allegations and con- .
rerns, which had been corrected, were substantiated. Three others were also substantiated, which the QA/QC Group concluded had potential significance. I With respect to personal logs, the QA/QC Group found that during the early - years of the CPSES project, QA inspectors kept logs of all jobs that they inspected. A personal log was discovered that noted some items, in the early l t years, which should have been documented in irs or NRCs; but, such documen-tation could not be verified because of the limited information in the log . Personal inspection logs are no longer maintained, although some inspectors do keep a personal record of their work activities. 02/15/85 3-8 COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3
6 With respect to safety related document reviews, the QA/QC Group found that although nonconformances were corrected, there was no overall review by the QA
' organization of recurring problems and little, if any, programmatic corrective action.
The QA/QC Group also found some specific cases of inaccurate dispo- ,- sition of NCRs. In one case, for example, the description of the nonconforming condition was changed, which changed the meaning of the NCR. The QA/QC Group concludes that most of the identified NCR issues have neither safety significance nor generic implication. Howeser, the three issues iden-tified above have safety significance and genetic implications relevant to a partial breakdown within the QA/QC program. (See Attachment 2, QA/QC Category 50.) 3.10 Findings for Materials Issues The QA/QC Group found that an ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code survey at CP5ES, in October 1981, determined that B&R did not verify the transfer of material identification and that control of material salvaged from vendor-supolied components was inadequate. Subsequently, TUEC took appropriate corrective actions, but failed to report the QA program deficiency to the NRC as required by 10 CFR.50.55(e). (See Attachment 2, QA/QC Category SE.) The QA/QC Group found that the TUEC reclassification of materials program is acceptable. Materials were classified from one safety class to another, and upgraded or downgraded, in accordance with the ASME Aode requirements. The < .. allegation that systems were downgraded to eliminate ANI inspections was not substantiated. The QA/QC Group concludes that the allegations and concerns identified with respect to materials issues have neither safety significance nor generic implications. j The material identification problem, which existed in the early years, was corrected. The other concerns could not be substantiated or per-tained to acceptiable procedures. i 02/15/85 3-9 COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3 3
3.11 Findings for QC Inspection Issues The QA/QC Group found that the instruction to document deficiencies in inspection reports (irs) was consistent with both B&R and TUEC procedures, and ' was not a misuse of the IR system. With respect to the allegation that QC inspectors were harrassed and told to ignore problems, the QA/QC Group found this to be an atypical case, caused in part by the individual's behavior. Numerous weld irregularities were identified on CE&I pipe whip restraints, which had inadequate source inspections. Gibbs & Hill (G&H) structural engi-neering evaluated the seriousness of each defect in each restraint. Based on this review, G&H dispositioned 67 restraints as having insignificant defects. Of the 48 remaining restraints, 21 were selected as worst case welds and the paint was removed and the welds on these 21 restraints were reinspected. A stress analysis was also rerun for these 21 restraints, and based on this inspection and analysis, all restraints were found acceptable. The QA/QC Group found that the selection of worst case welds and their reanalysis was a questionable method for acceptance of all weld irregularites on CB&I pipe whip supports. Accordingly, the QA/QC Group concludes that the allegation and concerns relevant to this issue have potential safety significance; but, does not have any generic implications. (See Attachment 2, QA/QC Category 6.) The QA/QC Group found no evidence of an organized disruption that was either intended or created by the 8 QC inspectors involved in the so called" T-shirt incident." The QA/QC Group concludes that this issue has neither safety ...
, significance nor generic implications.
With respect to the worn gauges that were used to calibrate lighting restraint cable tools, the QA/QC Group found that the worn gauges were identified by the 4 inspection system, which resulted in appropriate evaluation of the potential problem and replacement of the worn gauges. The QA/QC Group concludes that . l ' this issue has neither safety significance nor generic implications.
. ~
{
/
- Based ona/
' review of documents, procedures, and records, the QA/QC Group could not substantiate that craft personnel made unauthorized design changes by writing travelers. The QA/QC Group found no traveler initiated by craft 02/15/85 3-10 4 COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3 _ _ , -- - - - -~w
personnel Accordingly, the QA/QC Group concludes that this issue has neither safety significance nnr geleric implications. 3.12 Findings for QA Scepe Issues Based on reviews and interviews conducted by the QA/QC Group, the allegation and concerns that QC was not supported in the past could not be substantiated. The QA/QC Group also found that TUEC had adequate procedures to assure good site coordination. However, with respect to the evidence presented relevant to areas of careless workmanship, the QA/QC Grqup found careless workmanship during its as-built inspections. Except for the latter, the QA/QC Group concludes that the allegations and concerns identified have neither safety significance nor generic implications. With respect to the receipts of nonconfirming material at CPSES, the QA/QC Group found that the inspection system used at CPSES was adequate to preclude insufficiently examined, nonconforming, material from being released for installation. The QA/QC Group concludes that the allegation and concern identified has neither safety significance nor generic implication. The QA/QC Group could not substantiate the allegation and concern about the qualifications of B&R QA construction managers. Primarily by use of an exclu-sion clause, B&R met its job classification requirements for placing experi-enced individuals in certain site QA management positions. The QA/QC Group concludes that this issue has neither safety significance nor generic implications. .. i The QA/QC Gro'>p substantiated the allegation and concerns about craft personnel and QC inspectors reviewing records of their own work. However, the QA/QC Group also found that when the ANIS found that inspectors had reviewed their own completed work packages, they returned the packages to B&R for reverification by another person. Further, the QA/QC Group found that the QA/QC organization was in accordance with NRC requirements. The allegation and concern that QC lack (d organizational independence from construction could not be substantiated. The QA/QC Group concludes that these identified issues have no safety significance nor generic implications. I i 02/15/85 3-11 COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3
~
With respect to TUEC's audits and auditors, the QA/QC Group found that during the peak construction period (years 1981-1982), the audit group consisted of only four auditors who had only minimal technical experience, and only one had a degree in a technical discipline. Moreover, the auditors did not conduct timely follow up audits to verify whether effective actions had been taken to correct their reported deficiencies, nor did they assess the overall effective-ness of the various site QA/QC functions. With respect to the allegation and concern that the audit reports were changed, the QA/ QC Group found that the ider<tified audit report contained errors, redundant and subjective comments, was poorly written, and that the audit was based on the wrong regulatory requirements. The changes made by the QA supervisor were justified and appropriate. In general, the allegation and concern that TUEC management lacked commitment to an adequate QA/QC program was substantiated. Although TUEC's Quality Program Manual met the NRC's requirements, the QA/QC Group found that the implementation of the QA program in a number of areas was weak. The QA/QC Group concludes that TUEC management met minimal QA program requirements -- without a senior management ccmmitment to, or verification of, an effectively implemented QA program. Further, the QA/QC Group concludes that improvements need to be made in the management of TUEC's exit interview program, which appears to lack objectivity. (See Attachment 2, QA/QC Category 7.) The QA/QC Group concludes that the safety significance and generic implications of minimal QA program implementation are reflected in the results of the TRT's - evaluation of nearly every aspect of the QA/QC programs at CPSES; including as-built inspections of completed systems or components, which had been inspected and accepted by TUEC. (See Attachment , Letter to Mr. M. D. Spence, Presi-dent, Texas Utilities Generating Company, dated January 8,1985 ) A S 02/15/85 3-12 COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3
+., .
3.13 Findings for As-Built Issues 4 With respect to the allegation and concern that craft personnel would make things fit, and NCRs were voided by engineenwriting as-built or use-as-is @ on them, the QA/QC Group found that modifications to vendor certified drawings, i-which reflected the as-built condition, were recertified by the vendor's onsite representative. The QA/QC Group reviewed 72 NCRs that were dispositioned use-as-is and found none that was improperly dispositioned. The QA/QC Group found an excessive number of irregularities in the inspection travelersforthefueltransfercanallinef,butthesedocumentationanomlies were not falsifications, per se, and occurred because of poor practices. The allegation that weld radiography was not completed was not substantiated. The a QA/QC Group concludes that the documentation anomolies resulted from p 4 blems, which have safety significance and generic implications of a QA/QC breakdown. 4 .. The post-construction verification program (PCVP) walkdowns were made after final
- j inspections and prior to a plant area being turned over to the TUEC startup
{ testing organization. ! These walkdowns by plant operations personnel were not considered to be inspections, but served to identify and correct any remaining
~
deficiencies.htN.Theallegcfe'sperceptionofthislimitedprogra[as a"
'] pection"isunderstandabl(;however,theQA/QCGroupcouldnotsubstanti-ate most of the allegations and concitrns relevant to the PCVP.
l But the QA/QC i Groupfoundcertainprogrammaticweehnessesrelevanttoalackofguidancewith respecttothelevelofdeficiencyr{equiredtoinitiateanNCR,anowithrespect to trending nonconformances. (See Actachment 2, Category 8, AQ-135.) L The QA/QC Group pufsued seven principle allegations and concerns about the as-built inspection p*ogram used by TUEC to address the NRC's Inspection and i ! Enforcement Bullet'tn (IEB) 79-14 relevant to pipe supports, and found that: f 02/15/85 2-15 COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3 g A
~
(1) during installation inspection, QC inspects for the proper location of pipe supports, then location is rechecked in the IEB 79-14 program; (2) discrepancies identified, which were outside the scope of the IEB 79-14 program, were transmitted to the QC inspection group for appropriate corrective action or disposition; (3) the identification of loose bolts or defective welds, for example, was not the principle purpose of the IEB 79-14 programj when detected, these types of deficiencies should have been referred-to the installation QC inspection group; 4 (4) prior to April 18, 1984, there were various angularity tolerances applied to sway struts and snubbers, and no instance of angularity exceeding the allowable installation tolerance was found; (5) the IEB 79-14 program, which was not a QC installation inspection, was performed 4 for the most part, by degreed civil engineers who checked support type and its location, direction, clearances, and angularity; 3 (6) the engineering, review, by the technical services as-built coordinator (TSABC) and the technical services design review engineer (TSDRE), was prohept, competent, and well documented; and (7) ! t- the procedure CP-EI-4.5-7, " General Program for As-Built Piping Verification " , provided sufficient instructions and definition of the attributes that were [ checked within the IEB 79-14 program. Accordingly, the QA/QC Group concludes that the allegations and concerns relevant [ to the IEB 79-14 issues were not substantiated. However, in connection with assessing these issues, the QA/QC Group made a limited inspection of QC-accepted i installed hardware in Unit 1, and found, as implied by the allegations and concerns , an excessive level of deficient:ies, which indicates a QA/QC breakdown in the installation QC field inspections. i 02/15/85 3 - l /- ! COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3 - n
, Although the as-built assessment did not specifically associate the identified hardware problems with design or document control deficiencies, some of the problems identified could have resulted from not using the latest revised document packages for construction and inspection. The QA/AC Group as-built verification inspection found evidence of faulty construction by craft personnel, installed hardware that did not match the as-built drawings, and inadequate QC inspections in the field. The frequency and repeatability of deficiencies related to pipe supports were most notable with respect to: excessive free gap at the spherical bearings of snubbers and sway struts; strut and snubber fasteners not properly secured; and insufficient thread engagement of bolts in shock arrester plates. The QA/QC Group also found a high rate of rejectable characteristics on Class lE electrical supports. The Q C Group concludes that in those systems and components inspected, ASME code requirements and quality acceptance standards, as well as site QC procedures, h were compromised. The QA/QC Group also concludes that the inspection of certain electrical supports was unsatisfactory. (See Attachment 2, Category 8, AQ-50.) 3.14 Overall Assessment and Conclusions " Most of the allegations and concerns expressed by quality control personnel pertained, in general, to incidents involving administrative errors or procedural deviations; perceptions about the adequacy of another group's performance in related QA/QC activities; and to QA/QC deficiencies that existed in the early years, but were subsequently corrected. Whether substantiated or not, they collectively implied dissatisfaction with the QC inspection program and the as-built status of Comanche Peak. Accordingly, the QA/QC Group made an indepth review of the QA/QC program at CPSES, which identified certain weaknesses in the implementation of the TUEC QA program. The QA/QC Group also made a limited inspection of installed QC-accepted hardware and concluded, in general, that the frequency of recurring deficiencies identified during the limited inspection were excessive and that the final QC inspections were somewhat inadequate. Based on its overall review of the QA program at CPSES, the QA/QC Group concludes that TUEC's QA program, organization, procedures and documentation met the NRC 02/15/85 3 - if COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3 v
i - , l 1 requirements. However, implementation of the program, including management's commitment to the program, was weak in several areas. In addition, although the QC inspection training and certification program guidelines defined by TUEC and B&R procedures met or exceeded NRC requirements, in practice these guide-lines were not followed and this resulted in an inspection certification program that met only minimal requirements. Collectively, weak implementation of the QA program and minimal QC inspection certification requirements, resulted in installed hardware deficiencies and the failure during final QC acceptance inspections to identify and correct such deficiencies. Accordingly, the QA/QC Group concludes that TUEC should reassess the construction quality at Comanche Peak, and submit to the NRC, in writing, a program and' schedule of its proposed specific corrective actions. 0 O f 3 -Ile , 02/15/85 COMANCHE PEAK SSER SEC 3 n
..y..,.
O
.j - D , , ?i Doc at Name:
C CHE PEAK SSER ATT 1 Requestor's ID: LO Author's Name: Workinger T.R. Document Comments: PH-2/78 s e e
.O e
G 6
-we f
4 a t
ei * . J ATTACHMENT 1 LISTING OF TECHNICAL CONCERNS AND ALLEGATION.S I, Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) Allegation - Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-1 QA/QC deficiencies in areas of coatings,
. civil and structural, and piping and mechanical.
AQ-2 Poor QA practices, which are specified in
. allegation AQW-15, Mechanical and Piping, Category 30.
AQ-3 Documentation was totally out of control. 2 AQ-4 Staffing of satellite document control 2 centers was inadequate. AQ-5 There was a lack of material traceability SE for safety related materials and components. 1 L AQ-6 The Texas utilities Electric Company's 7 (TUEC) auality control organization lacks independence from the TUEC construction organization.
~
l l l l i'
4 Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-7 Brown & Root QC inspectors and document 3 reviewers were falsifying records of piping and piping support hanger packages. Data were changed on a weld datu card by a QC inspector. AQ-8 There was an intentional coverup of known deficiencies in the document control system. (Referred to NRC Office of Investigations) AQ-9 A quality assurance (QA) employee was 7 periodically in jail. Any QA records supposedly generated by that employee on those dates would have been falsified. AQ-10 Civil quality control records were falsified: " (Referred to NRC Office of Investigations) - AQ-11 Inspection records were falsified. (Refected to NRC Office of Investig& Lions). AQ-12 Nonsafety-related materials were improperly SE upgraded to safety related materials. AQ-13 Material was upgraded from one safety class SE to another through the use of interoffice memoranda or other unauthorized means. , AQ-14 Safety-related systems were downgraded to SE avoid inspection by the Authorized Nuclear Inspectors (ANIS). AQ-15 After field changes, final design drawings 1 were altered. 2
Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-16 Documentation of design changes and drawings 2 was inadequate and unreliable. AQ-17 Control of design documentation packages 2 was lax.
! AQ-18 Design documents and drawings used in 2 the field were not controlled. Instead of complete document packages, partial packages were issued for field use.
AQ-19 Contrary to a Texas Utilities Generating 2 company (TUGCO) procedure, " Control Copy" stamps were used by the Paper Flow Group. and the Quality Control Department. AQ-20 Nonconforming material found during 7 - supplier audits, or source inspections, was released for shipment to the site without further inspections or examinations. The material nonconformances consisted of insuffi~cient nondestructive examinations and .. lack of heat number traceability. AQ-21 Control of vendor-certified drawings (VCDs) 1 and documentation of changes were deficient. AQ-22 The vendor-certified drawings (VCDs) for ' }[S ASME-code component supports had dimensional li errors. i AQ-23 Quality control inspection training was 4 deficient. - i 3
Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-24 Quality control inspector training was 4 deficient, and there was widespread cheating on certification exams. AQ-25 A large part of Brown & Root's quality 7 assurance management was incompetent or not qualified for their positions. _ A millwright foreman was unqualified. AQ-26 Due to inadequate training, quality control 4 _ inspectors were not qualified. AQ-27 Quality control inspectors in the design 4 change verification group (DCVG) were inadequately trained.
~
AQ-28 Training records incorrectly sta,ted the 4 - training received by individual QC inspectors. AQ-29 Supervising personnel in the civil quality control department were not qualified. (Discussed in Coatings, allegation AQ0-33.) AQ-30 Improper use of interoffice memos to 50 disposition nonconformance reports or to make changes that would be otherwise unauthorized. . AQ-31 Improper voiding of nonconformance reports 50 through the use of informal interoffice memos. 4
l
\
Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-32 Brown & Root QA management was not ensuring 50 that corrective actions were taken regarding documented nonconformances. AQ-33 Some design change authorization (DCA) and 2 component modification card (CMC) inspection reports were prepared from a computer printout rather than from a physical inspection of the vault's documents. The computer data base did not contain the latest versions of the DCAs or
. . CMCs. The design change verification group's inspectors were not qualified to perform the necessary physical inspections.
AQ-34 Nonconformance reports were disapproved and 50 i subsequently destroyed. 4 AQ-35 A Brown & Root quality control manager issued 6 oral and written instructions that stated that inspection reports (irs) were to be used
~
to document deficiencies, rather than noncon-formance reports (NCRs), because NCRs required __ engineering review and disposition for closure, L whereas irs can be closed by anyone. I l AQ-36 Design change authorizations (DCAs) were SD l frequently used at CPSES to cover-up a condition for which a nonconformance report (NCR) should have been written. AQ-37 QC inspectors were concerned that defici- SD ! encies reported on inspection reports might not be corrected and reinspected before turnover. 5 \ __ . _ - - _ - _ _ . _ _ = - _ _ . _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ - . - . . - - .
i l Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-38 QC inspectors were harassed by being told to 6 ignore problems. AQ-39 A QC inspector accepted improper work. (Discussed in Mechanical and Piping, under welding). .- s AQ-40 Heat numbers for materials used in safety- SE related applications were assigned improperly in the field. AQ-41 Safety-related bulk pipe joints were sand- SE blasted on the outside, which removed all of the heat markings used for traceability. AQ-42 Drawings that were not always the most up-to- 'I2 date version, or partial design packages, - were issued to craft personnel and QC inspectors for use in the field. AQ-43 Craft personnel bootlegged rework, after SA final QC sign off, by performing repairs , without any documentation. AQ-44 Instead of following the appropriate design 8 document, there were instances where craft personnel would make things fit and have an engineer write "as-built" on the document. AQ-45 Between May 1982 and July 1984, permanent 3 records were not stored in a fireproof vault. 6
.. ... ~ -
Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-46 On March 8, 1984, eight electrical QC 6 inspectors who were assigned to the Safe-guard Building area wore T-shirts bearing the slogan " Comanche Peak Nit Picker, I am in the Business of Picking Nits." Because the inspectors all reported to work in these T-shirts, they appeared to TUEC management to be participating in an organized disruption. AQ-47 Undocumented weld repairs and modifications SA were made after QC acceptance. AQ-48 QC personnel lost control of Torque Seal. 17 (Discussed in AQB-2, Mechanical and Piping). AQ-49 _a Data cards were lost. , 3 AQ-50 The as-built inspection program for pipe 8 supports was too narrow in scope, and it ignored dimensional discrepancies that might exist between the field condition and _ final as-built drawings. AQ-51 Equipment was disassembled and maintenance 5A was performed without authorization or _ proper documentation. AQ-52 Site personnel interchanged parts of uniden- SA tified diaphragm valves during site disas-sembly and reassembly operations. Part traceability to the valves was lost and the operability of the valves may be affected. 7
l Allegation Page 4 Number Characterization Category Number AQ-53 Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) SE failed to maintain traceability on a large motor-operated valve (MOV). AQ-54 Cleaning procedures for cleanliness of SC components and areas were not maintained. AQ-55 Fuel transfer canal liner documentation 8 was falsified. Required weld radiography was not completed. AQ-56 Construction quality assurance deficiencies. (Discussed in AM-24 and AM-25, Mechanical and Piping.) AQ-57 Manual document logs did not match the "2 Document Control Center (DCC) design change record. AQ-58 Uncontrolled drawings were used in the field. 2 AQ-59 Satellite design change logs were not kept 2 up-to-date. AQ-60 The Document Control Center (DCC) did not 2 maintain an accurate listing of design changes affecting drawings and specifications. ' AQ-61 Supervisors instructed welders to weld-up a SA gouged hole rather than wait for the authori-zation that follows the engineering disposi- l tion of a discrepancy. 8
D Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-62 General allegations about poor contruc-tion practices (Discussed in Civil and Structural, allegations AQC-11, AC-28, 29 and 30.) AQ-63 General allegation about inadequate crafts-man training. (Discussed in Electrical and Instrumentation, allegations AQE-10 and AE-14.) AQ-64 Overexcavation under Unit 1 containment. (Discussed in Civil and Structural, Category 16.) AQ-65 A cleaning employee was instructed to find 5C out which three areas the QC inspectors were going to check, and then clean those areas - and forget the rest. AQ-66 General allegation regarding poor management practices. (Discussed in Electrical and ' Instrumentation, Allegations AQE-10 and AE-14.) AQ-67 Brown and Root used improper construction practices. (Duplicate of allegations AQ-51, AQ-82, AQB-3 and AC-15.) AQ-68 Periodic missed maintenance has occurred. 5A AQ-69 There was a lack of job coordination as 7 evidenced by shoddy workmanship, poor supervision, waste of materials, and hundreds of defects that were not reported. 9
. Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-70 Craft personnel made unauthorized design 6 changes by writing travelers that allowed
.' them to use an incomplete design package in
, the field. .j AQ-71 The document control computer system was not 2 accurate. .
AQ-72 Design change documents were lost, no log 2 was kept of lost documents, and occasionally,
, when a specific document could not be found, the missing design change listing was deleted from the computer log.
AQ-73 Document control clerks received little 4 training and learned how to process travelers " and other types of document packages on the
, job.
AQ-74 Hundreds of packages of permanent records 3
, were lost in the course of various moves.
AQ-75' Changes to the N-5 program procedures for 3 processing documents into and out of the vault, which were made on or about March 7, 1984, made it impossible for the document reviewers to do their job. AQ-76 Management deleted an approved set of proce- 3 dures for reviewing docements, which left the document controllers without review procedures. 10
..n..
I l
. Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-77 The ensite fabrication shop, without proce- 5B dures, fabricated parts, such as eyebolts , (I-bolts), that had been lost from a vendor component after receipt inspections.
u AQ-78 Hold points for inspection on travelers for 8 l the Fuel Building were signed off improperly. AQ-79 Safety-related parts were made in the fabri- 58 cation shop without any fabrication instruc-tions or the required quality control inspections. AQ-80 QA/QC inspectors were pressured by management SD and craft personnel not to write nonconfor-mance reports. AQ-81 General allegation about poor construction management practices. (Discussed in Electrical and Instrumentation, allegations AQE-10 and AE-14.) AQ-82 Maintenance cards were signed off without 5A the actual maintenance being performed, and quality control personnel accepted the work without actually inspecting it. AQ-83 Data were changed on a weld data card by a 3 QC inspector. AQ-84 This number used to track NRC's Office of Investigations' Report 4-84-025. 11
~- -
, . - ~ .
9 Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-85 Test deficiency reports (TDRs), inspection SD reports (irs), and maintenance action requests (MARS) were being used for condi-tions that warranted writing nonconformance reports (NCRs), in place of NCRs. AQ-86 By not permitting the same QC inspector to SD close out the deficiencies identified, QC supervisors made it difficult for QC personnel to do follow up inspections on
. NCRs.
AQ-87 Craft personnel were signing off nonconfor- 50 mance reports (NCRs) that QC personnel refused to sign. AQ-88 Illegal aliens, who were not fluent encugh SA - in English to understand the construction documentation, performed safety-related work. AQ-89 Isometric design drawings were not verified 1 by the originating design organization. i c_- AQ-90 The iterative design process for safety- 1 related piping systems had broken down, !. and engineers did not perform any analysis on design changes. ("s efc.; ,cc'. J. , C y'6t/ A ccv.c.J q rov v:) L AQ-91 Personnel performing prerequisite testing 4 l were improperly or inadequately trained and received little, if any, supervision in the field during testing. 12
4 Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-92 Preoperation test process was flawed. (Discussed in AT-15, Electrical and Instrumentation.) AQ-93 Preoperation test process was flawed. (Discussed in AT-15, Electrical and Instrumentation.) - AQ-94 Preoperation test process was flawed. (Discussed in AT-15, Electrical and Instrumentation.) . AQ-95 Nonconformance reports (NCRs) were written SD to apply to more than one traveler, and thus were being misused. AQ-95 The use of open ended field job orders 50 (FJ0s) made it appear that the work was preapproved. AQ-97 Because the documentation did not match 50 the log book, permanent documents were removed from the vaults and new NCRs were written relevant to old problems. AQ-98 Extensive delays occurred in the repair of SA safety related material. AQ-99 Authorized Nuclear Inspectors (ANIS) 2
~
accepted flawed packages, knowing that they contained defic'ent documentation. i I 13
e Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number
~
AQ-100 When first implemented, the paper flow 2 groups (PFGs) issued incomplete document packages to craft personnel. AQ-101 Satellites obtained documents from the phone 2 bank without notifying the CRT group, which was responsible for maintaining updated distribution control lists. AQ-102 A document control center satellite super- 2
, visor's action resulted in procedural violations that were not reported to TUEC quality assurance representatives for review and consideration of a reportable deficiency pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e).
AQ-103 Auout mid-May 1984, design changes not 2 - , incorporated in drawings were deleted from theopendesignchange,computerprintout]p logs. AQ-104 A DCC supervisor authorized the release of 2 a partial document package to the field. AQ-105 Drawings for cable tray hanger assembly 2 FSE-00159 were not accompanied by logs that showed design changes outstanding against the drawing, and, for a period of time, there was no sign out log for the drawings. - l 1 i
, 14
. . L.
, e
- Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-106 Startup work authorization (SWAs) 50 have incorporated uncontrolled design change documents. Nonconformance reports (NCRs) were written against the SWAs to control design changes.
AQ-107 In response to telephone requests, 2 individual documents were issued by traveler number. AQ-108 The quality control inspectors initially 4 assigned to inspecting some 2500 Class 5 supports were inadequately trained and supervised. AQ-109 The dismissal of a QC inspector had an 50 adverse effect regarding the preparation - of nonconformance reports (NCRs). AQ-110 Document packages were destroyed by the 2 Document Control Center (DCC) prior to the completion of Unit 1. AQ-111 An individual was directed to perform tasks 1 that he was not qualified to do. Unapproved hanger location drawings were released to the field and used by craft personnel to locate and install hangers. AQ-112 - Plant operations management did not accept 7 the deficiency reports written by tha construction startup turnover surveillance group on operations activities. 15 l
5 Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-113 Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) 7 management lacked commitment to an adequate quality assurance and control program, i AQ-114 Instead of writing NCRs, Brown & Root QC 50 kept personal logs of the deficiencies that they discovered and then obtained their disposition. AQ-115 If material requested was unavailable, SE _ iron fabrication shop personnel upgraded materials to fill orders. AQ-116 Brown & Root procedural changes have 50 , resulted in the manipulation of safety-related documentation and violations of procedures established for the final review - of documentation prior to turnover to TUEC. AQ-117 Duplicate paperwork on flange travelers SA indicated a lack of communication between departments. AQ-118 Document controllers and N-5 groups were i instructed not to discuss anything with NRC. i (Referred to NRC Office of Investigations.) AQ-119 Vendor-certified drawings (VCRs) were 1 i revised to reflect the as-built condition in the plar t, n i i 16
Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-120 So schedules could be maintained when 50 Reactor Building Unit 1 vtas about to be turned over, the disposition of a number of nonconformance reports (NCRs) was rushed through. AQ-121 Program controls for areas not constructed 7 in accordance with ASME-code requirements were considerably less structured than the program controls for those areas being constructed in accordance with ASME-code requirements. Some installed structures did not meet design drawing requirements, and the lead QC inspector, group leader, inappropriately approved changes to travelers for non-ASME structures. AQ-122 Because quality control was not supported, 7 the quality assurance program was deficient. AQ-123 Incomplete document packages were issued 2 to the Paper Flow Group (PFG) by the . document control center satellites under a three part memo authorization. AQ-124 Some nonconformance reports (NCRs) were SD dispositioned inaccurately. AQ-125 There were problems at the site regarding 3 lost records, i 17
~
r 'l y -- '- -. s Allegation , Page Number haracterization , Category Number AQ-126 Between December 1983 and February 1984, 7 former. craftsmen and inspectors' were , performing a record verification of document packages that contained records of their own work or inspections. AQ-127 Site library documents were not. current, 7 design change authorizations'were not available when needed, and the distribution of documents and changes was not always _ accomplished. Brown &~ Root quality assurance personnel, who used the site library, did not have access to valid, current reference documents and procedures. AQ-128 Nonconformance reports (NCRs) were improperly "8 dispositioried by an engineer writing "as- - built" and "use-as-is" on them. AQ-129 Unauthorized removals and changes were made 3 to records stored in the pemanent records storage vault. j AQ-130 A discrepancy was noted between valve disc SA ! numbers on repair traveler and thase on the code data report. AQ-131 Darnaged electrical boxes received at the SA cem u e.
-Cas mche Peak Steam Electric Station were repaired by unauthorized personnel. ,
i h 18
Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-132 Texas Utilities Electric Company's (TUEC's) 7 quality assurance audits and auditors were not independent of the area being audited, and audit reports were changed to reflect what management wanted them to state. AQ-133 Management of TUEC's personnel exit inter- 7 view program was inadequate and the program was not effective. AQ-134 For about 1 year, various construction 2 operational travelers were not submitted to the Authorized Nuclear Inspectors (ANIS) for review and establishment of hold points prior to their issuance. AQ-135 The post-construction verification program 8 - (PCVP) was conducted in such a manner that it failed to adequately process the results of quality control inspections as required by Appendix B to 10 CFR 50. The PCVP had inadequate scope and depth, had inadequate review of identified deficiencies, and had inadequate followup of the programs results. AQ-136 The Authorized Nuclear Inspectors (ANIS) 2 may not be qualified. AQ-137 ASME N-5 welding records and documents in 3 the permanent records storage vault were altered by adding welder's, or inspector's, signatures to records. 19
j Allegation Page Number Characterization Category Number AQ-138 Craft personnel were asked to perform 5B work without proper paperwork; the paper-work was postdated; nonsafety related material was mixed with safety related material; a supervisor directed an employee to improperly color-code material; and during consolidation of all_ fabrication shops, material from the electrical shop was mixed with safety related material in the iron fabrication shop (the electrical shop used undocumented material). The ASME quality control inspectors did not check threads; undocumented weld repairs were made on base metal; threaded rod was cut in the iron fabrication shop without quality control inspectors checking for the proper transfer of heat numbers before cutting; . and thermal cutting of stainless' steel by arc gouging was done as close to the cut line as possible to minimize grinding. AQE-9 Electrical drawings used for inspections 2
~
were incomplete. AQE-41 Incorrect installation and the issuance of 6 a nonconformance report (NCR) resulted from the use of worn gauges that were used to calibrate, lighting restraint cable, crimping tools. AQH-1 Construction and inspection records for some 2 pipe hangers were separately maintained. This may have resulted in an inadequate final QA review. 20
e . e
. l l
l Allegation Page I Number Characterization Category Number AQH-16 Hanger packages were taken from the vault 3 and screened to remove old material, which was placed in manila folders. AQW-13 Weld data cards (WDCs) were changed or 2 destroyed. AW-37 A 4- or 6-inch stainless steel check valve SA was disassembled for an authorized weld repair, without a written procedure for
. its disassembly and reassembly.
~
4 44 O e 21
' ! f b ~ (ur 0707 1 raft 5 - 11
~
AQ-113 - CP8 _f -} : L "c[ ti, **1'A *' C t.tw V ut \ (ULL 0t hK'/L lW 1. D u ch i le_j d%ddQ Allegation Category. QA/QC 7 y b.S % ,
- 2. Allegation Number: AQ-113
. 3. Characterization: ,It is alleged that TUEC management lacked commitment to an adequate QA/QC program.
- 4. Assessment of Safety Significance: [The implied significance of th D rllegation a is that without management commitment an ineffective quality _
assurance (QA) program could exist which may not provide assurance that all (construction activities were in compliance with reaulatory recuirements. This allegation identified one specific example of a lack of management q commitment to an adequate QA program. It was TUEC's untimely i
\ 10 CFR 50.55(e) report to the NRC for the failures of 3 out of 4 of Unit 1 safety related inverters.) However, the NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) found additional examples supporting the illegation, including both a _ lack of effective corrective actions for quality problems and failure to audit L QA program effectiveness, which resulted in potential violations of NRC QA requirements. Therefore, this assessment addresses the broader scope of the QA program and management's lack of commitment to it. The TRT assessed the following: -
(a) QA Program Implementation (b) Management Assessment of QA Program (c) Nonconformance/and 10 CFR 50.55(e) Reporting (d) Corrective Action (E) As Built Configuration of Hardwaras (f) Departing Employees Exit Interview Program
9 The TRT determined that the duties and levels of authority for TUEC's QA/ QC functions were clearly defined in the FSAR and TUEC Quality Manual. Also,identifiedwas%uality's\ndependenceandyrganization\reedom. The TRT also determined that although TUEC corporate QA auditors were quali-fied in accordance with the requirements of ANSI N45.2.23, the group con-sisted of only four auditors, and was understaffed during the peak con-struction phase (1981-2) of the plant. In addition, these four auditors ~ had only minimal technical experience, ain; none had a degree in a technical discipline, which could result in audit reports that would subsequently have to be revised by management. The TRT interviewed TUEC management to ascertain its position regarding the questionable qualifications of their auditors. TUEC stated that their auditors do not have to understand technical content or reason for a pro-cedure in order to verify the procedure is implemented. The TRT also found that TUEC auditors did not conduct timely followup audits to verify that effective action was taken to correct the deficiencies that were reported as a result of their audits (i.e., TUEC Audits TCP-23, 40, & 68). Details oftheTRT'sassessmentofTUEC's%ality ditkogramisaddressedin AQ-132, Category 7. Section C of WASH 1283, " Review of grogram by Management," contains the requirement for a regular managemenYaudit of the QA function. It requires, ' in part, that " management above the level of the management having direct responsibility for the activity under discussion [QA, in this case]... periodically perform an audit of the activity." This requirement is sup-ported in the TUEC FSAR, Section 17.2, which states that "The Vice Presi-dent, Nuclear Operations shall, on a regular basis, not to exceed 24 months, perform or authorize independent management audits of QA activities..." 9TheTRTfoundthatallsiteQAactivitiesweresubjectedtoauditsbythe TUEC Corporate QA (Dallas) office. These audits appeared to have the pro-per frequency and scope, with one exception: Corporate QA apparently failed to assess the overall effectiveness of the various site quality control functions. TUEC representatives stated that there have been no regular assessments or reviews uf the adequacy of the total QA program by upper
1.
'j ; management, as required in Criterion II of 10 CFR 50, Appendix 8, aed.
WASH 1283 j and as committed to in the FSAR. (See AQ-132 for additional information regarding TUEC %nagement overview of CPSES QA function). 1 In evaluating qualification / certifications of record reviewers as related to independency, the TRT found that TUEC placed former craft and inspec-tion personnel in positions where they reviewed record packages potentially containing their own work. These findings are detailed in the SSERs for allegations AQ-6, AQ-25, AQ-126 and AQ-132 in QA/QC Category 7. In reviewing the nonconformance reporting system, the TRT noted that during 1983, 18 NCRs identified the need to retrain construction personnel in the content and requirements of QA procedures. For example, the TRT found that TUEC corrective action request (CAR)-024, which dealt with inadequate const'ruction training and records, was open for 12 months. After CAR-024 was closed, five other CARS identified inadequate training of construction personnel. The TUEC construction, startup/ turnover surveillance group identified the above conditions in CAR-009, dated April 4, 1984, which had not been closed at the time of the TRT inspection. This further supports the TRT finding of inadequate followup of audit findings. Details of the above findings are contained in the SSERs for allegations AQ-9, AQ-20, AQ-121 and AQ-127 in QA/QC Category 7. The TRT substantiated the specific example of allegation AQ-113, TUEC's
~
failure to report a 10 CFR 50.55(e) item to the NRC. TUEC found that three of the four Unit 1 safety-related Westinghouse instrument power supply inverters failed between February and May of 1983. TUEC initiated test y deficiency reports (TDRs) and NCRs to document the failures and to obtain replacement equipment from Westinghouse. i It was not until January 16, 1984, that TUEC made a verbal report to the [ NRC of this failure, approximately 11 months after knowledge of the failure, violating the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e). NRC Region IV reported this incident in Inspection Report 50-445/84-22, and also identi-
- fied it in a Notice of Violation. The TRT determined that TUEC did not i
n ,
< act promptly and did not demonstrate the seriousness of their commitment
\' to the reporting of significant construction deficiencies as required in L__ TUEC nonconformance/ deficiency reporting procedures.
The TRT conducted a limited review of TUEC and Brown & Root (B&R) correc-tive action systems. This investigation included a review of FSAR com-mitments, implementing procedures, and a verification of compliance with the procedures. FSAR Section 17.1.15 requires that a trend analysis of deficiencies and nonconformances be perfc cmed to identify adverse quality trends. The trend analysis should initiate appropriate corrective actions. The TRT determined that the trend analysis procedure (CP-QP-17.0) lacked sufficient detail and did not describe specifically how a trend analysis was to be performed. i The TRT also observed that corrective action procedures lacked specific guidelines describing when, in terms of magnitude or time, problems should have corrective action. This was apparently left to the judgm'ent of QA personnel. The TRT found that corrective action initially was taken via memos and/or letters of concern. If these were not ef fective then a CAR was initiated. Once a CAR was initiated, there were well-defined guide-lines for processing and closcout. However, as indicated above, CAR-024 reraained open for more than I? months. ., To assess the adequacy of the corstruction work performed, the TRT conduc-ted an overall evaluation of as-built construction (see AQ-50 in QA/QC Category No. 8). In that evaluation, the TRT found examples of careless inspection and workmanship. The TRT assessed the employee exit interview program which had been re-cently established. Exit interviews were superficial with inadequate fol-lowop investigation by TUEC personnel which had not revealed root causes of the potential problems identified. Without TUEC management commitment, the value of exit interviews is questionable, and does not add to the qual-ity awareness program
. _ . _ _ _ - _ - _ ~ _
,..~.
, 5. Conclusion and Staff Positions: Based on the TRT review of the overall QA program, the TRT concludes that this allegation is substantiated. Al-though TUEC's Quality Program Manual met the NRC requirements, the weakness of program implementation in various areas has demonstrated a lack of commitment to implementing an effective QA program in the following areas:
(a) Overall effectiveness of QA Program - No periodic management assess- + ment. - i (b) QA Audit Function - Understaffed during peak construction. 1 (c) Nonconformance Reporting - Recurrences of similar nonconformances. (d) Corrective Action - Ineffective followup as evidenced by recurring generic deficiencies (i.e., procedure violation due to lack of adequate craft training). ! (e) QA/QC Independency - Inspectors were,in the position of reviewing j . their own work records. i i (f) As-Built Configuration - Inconplete and inadequate workmanship and ineffe ctive QC inspection. l ! (g) 10 CFR 50.55(e) Reporting - Reprting not timely and threshold too l high. l-j (h) Exit Interviews with Departing Employees - Inadequately structured and ineffective follo,<up. Based on the above, the TRT concludes that TUEC management met only .I minimal QA program requirements, without a senior management-involved commitment to implement an effective QA program. The safety significance and generic implications of this allegation are typified best by the i results of the TRT's sessment in AQ-50, Category 8.
4 The alleger associated with this allegation has declined further contact with this IRT, therefore an exit interview was not conducted.
- 6. Actions Required: Sef Item I in the enclosure to this Eiser. hut letter "
t dated 1/8/85 to l l %encex_(TUEC). _
- . _ - ^ - - - - - - - . _
y 8k4p . y ,,g; .g t
> q . t :. y.a ,,.?.,.
*y..
3 W, . yq
..s , 't +v .
"..r ' aw.;
- $y- . . , t ,l R.% : , u. . .m, b? .y . =. <_ J . c y.
y h.,&. .:(/ p' '. : s,f $g,n%,Y,
.rs %.
- g. X ,N " . L ...i '.dr9 ;&;u f,G. ~*_ ,v' ,,;g3.w; &n .x&,.. Q'g c?
- n. , . .
4,. f
% r . i"-
,L ' ; .. . , 'c' y i . %* '-
.n; g:
$-.; $ 4,.:y s .f
+ . ., r k.
.. .,?yL, 4f. . ' : Q Ql%kg 3. 2 ;.lh f. . Og." ~'.5, ' 9 .. : Q: K%W l. ? %', > . 2 L - '. .: : ? . ' : o ;.C ic i .is. . .
4,1.y., d. .<'". <5. Mg g. ? < #. .. . ' , .4
..'.'.s,/ - -
6 .Y P . .y _.n i c :r y,.<. n n n
;5. . - ; . .w s .-
f,. .y ..
. . N. c.i ..e.m.
4 .
.n s 1
2
. , ' . -Q. ..
,p.4. ... .- .
..: .,s
-r. z; g. t .
ex N +7.' i{g . ,. . . - , .
,M , N~-~
H J ": y ,,t 3^ .. -I1 -{G
.,: I 2 / u % .l
^
. ; .. f :y ' : ~.c :. 4 .! ' . '
g; . . m ..s b. u - .v 4. #( .- ' g$y,.z,;.- 3
' w +f . b
- .. yt h, . sy l. h. v g . W. I..
. i.k.?, . fl ;c.h Y hk? f k _A Y h
; k.k:y"(! f
". ' $2, Itg k. Jc ', d, ., , ,- ...t' -[ ^
.2 " . P' .
'~.~,[.,- t, f g, . ' ' *
, ' .*".y i, [ p .
L': .0: % ;' , . . :, ,. 1 a **I D ., $ ,"v:
'e'.e
.i. - *'f*
.- , . ? % '- '
V -l *W*_ ~ U -.. e y- l:: " N '. ~ *-
.?,
. : .... ,:.- *Q . ,c.6 % i . : l' ', .. '", - i * &'% F
?. t. - ' <;
R ...':. ,'.F6. < .::= '; . '>M . ..*.L.v .
'h. n*
.t
' . < . ';'. s. : .
.l
.3 ,, f y 's. 3 g .. {;:- : <
.',*i,..
* '"~
*t*---'
... . k* . .: ',<- , -4M. -. 1
. ;: l-s -
, . , . ,4
.'q -
W, e.
,444 .4 _ w$.h '. _ . ,Q p
..' . . - f' .
, c <
-5.
i 4
.. .4f.. 6 v
':s:
e t ,a.s.' ,,,. , 2 e,. J s y a . .- s -
. # l . ,,?H.
. t %, * % , .4 4
=.- - . .. . -
' l C ..L 4' :; . .' " .
1 .a
'% '. f % y';ZA." %p' Q %.).- !'.; . ,,n /.i'.. ~[ .
7 . >hd -: % .s
-)L.f 3 :[..:.; .".,lv p
% i 94 7.~ - .,
- -'y, - ;
z~ z a :em -5 e .
. : :*4 : :p..~ s 3 4f].
\
~'9d;f# =} e. ... = %.1. Qq ' .v M.. 'Y - ;ip.. < ;l ..'J %
. ,. ,. : r . l - y N *;6, ; ' n 7, , a4 .y'. i. s ',9
< jO.. f. ss 4V , s: .ap"W 4
' ,.i. @r. , O ., .h.{.g,s . -) ,
s . .ls P' s 49.4Gj, .4 '..< ~ V ' 4, % . C ~. W,.v j .; , .i- ' J..i : ' Y. i v-
. ss o. : . s,e 2 ~ a .y ., a.m ..+ . .
. ' [, be 'e.w '- . .n l'- l T f;N i ' '
; 3,... j
. g.f N'y f.twA ...-
f, f;!!g ' % > i .4 Y - Wp .' c" s .- -
* '- l. ' i ;
- s'; f' h ~ -
?g g ly ftlg & & &.g. l Q . % D %. ,. ,ll:; e f f }.?;;i i M l;; . C l:.; Q.. (; }j $
. g \
'.v* ,', le. ..-w- . J. .[.
- i h /..r +
, .. - = .: : . .. : .- .-
. 's h . ,,,dd$ &.. ..,0',...f
., '.; g- 9 .A I 3 Y " d * . - l N '
is ,' ? ! ' T :.. k. .
*.\ 6 .- a ? ..S/ . '
', }, , ,. ,. .
[ ff -b f - WM. . y.d. . ":@ @9, %yne@;. O.f.vf\ .f., 4,p*. ' ..
- a. ; ,:: %
.+3 /u. .s v V. / 9. ' . . r.' .
. [:ei-n
?
. ,# 9 :, L
-. .e
, m y.
1
\r.
..-.,.....-r-.e
.. .uD, t 4
- - su
- . . ..c.Q x-
?
. .. '-.- a v
** L
. t .g. -
I k
' 1p 'y a' #f,y ,';s ,", o;m .;.- : - 3;.' ,e,. . .. ;r :-s. 'g< .4@: ~ T. p
~, , f %. .. :.
., ; W n : ,-;?
9
$ ~; i .% 8% g. ya; c
'c $
. Hl, 'p z.-Q . t r%
g-
; i A
\ g.. >.
c.
.$ y, b
.:,.1, 7,.q..
.f..
ni
- s. :: - > { fe n n .
.' p .m 1,y.e y..
j > 3_ . , c
,' .g.m A 7n.. r ..g , ' 3..; ,,....,.9
-c s .4 .. sS,b:q
- .f ;s
. ... e,.2,,.,s_, q(
. f ,. .
'.k . 34. gh ., ,, .
.x 3,; ,)s ." .,I th7,
-- , p y, 4
,.& c, . ,
".h . .- .-
. d .
)A.:,' ,., j. ,,,. . . . ' ,. ;i' .. "f .
* -
- c q( s ,. '.q:,,i
,r 9, c;~. + v
- ' g.g, rg .s.
s -
. ..a
., .. . p .s ._ . , c . _ u . - ." . :.g
' >3'.;. . .,
.s . a ..j ,.d . ,' . .- , . . c.
. t 5 1- 4,.-
3-t- 5
', ' - . .' ; . .< .& 'd ,' fq' J, 'i .- [+ - .P { j.J ,f" ..
$c , . . .
. a , N % w, . : .vn' :u . ,, ~.u:. n . .h. . , w .,.
. j. # --.. . ,: . ..c.k.
w.r,.. ~..w. .s - 1
.w ; .
. i .. ,%, x; ; ,.' ~ . w. ,
p i,' .' ' 5'y., v . h..,,Y'm I s.,. , &
.'4.... .S ,
- -" , /. ~,'l r .
~* :s :
.f
,C w w[w' . s ' r;,.,,p',..,
g y,i a' & .e w.g
, . f ., ,
. y ,. e' J' n,..
7 ,
;p, &p&-. 5 :
- f 4. } Y . - : '- l ,Nv 3 .,:, . ...k' . r z. -x, o. x. l,p .. ,^;.
- h $ lf '
- N< l u~
,I'".
/$?T.p ^.1.y-flt N Wb.
- O' .h. .
;L_; i. y . ,, .e.M; > .
.: hWZ [ ..Y.4%:.LM
~
i , fa *
- 8. Attachments: None. I j 9. Reference Documents: I l
- 1) TLEC Quality Assurance Manual ,
~
- 2) FSAR Chapter 17 l
- 3) TUEC Procedures:
CP-QP-19.0, Rev. 2, Audits CP-CS-1, Rev.1, Indoctrinat'on Training of TUGC0 QA Personnel CP-CS-1, Rev. 2, Indoctrination Training of TUGC0 QA Personnel .- CP-QP-15.7, Rev. 2, Tracking of Audit Reports / Corrective Action Reports DQI-CS-1.6, Rev. 7, Conduct of Internal, Prime, and Subcontractor Audits CP-QP-16.1, Rev. 5, Significant Construction Deficiencies . CP-QP-15.6, Rev. 1, SOAR Status Tracking - CP-LP-16.3, Rev. 3, Control of Reportable Deficiencies CP-QP-17.0, Rev. 4, Correctise Action
- 4) WASH-1283, Rev. 1, Guidance on Quality Assurance Requirements During Desig.i and Procurement Phase of Nuclear Power Plants. -
- 5) ANSI N45.2.23, Qualification of Quality Assurance Program Audit Personnel for Nuclear Facilities.
- 6) TUGC0 QA Audits: TCP-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 17, 23, 24, 39, 40, 41, 43, 46, 56, 66, 67, 68, 74, 81, 97,101, and 111 (in process).
- 7) Notice of Violation, Appendix A, Item B Docket 50-445/84-22. I
- 8) A-47 July 16, 1984, Affidavit, pages 13-14.
L
.. : . . A * ,
_g_
- 9) SSERs for allegations AQ-6, AQ-9, AQ-20, AQ-25, AQ-69, AQ-112, AQ-121, AQ-122, AQ-126, AQ-127, AQ-132, and AQ-133.
- 10. This statement prepared by:
l C.Morton, Date
!- TRT Revies 3r Y.L.N M '4Ls Received by:
H. Livermore, Date Group Leader Approved by: V. Noonan, Date Program Director 9 A i l l L l
r -z r - _,
, , s, . . . .. ' ' ' ~ '
- ,,, 4 ^ument /
g _
,6 REV 3 '
)
4 s ID: ._ LAVERNE ,
- Author's Name:
Chet Poslusny . Document Comments: ' I 5/4/85 Return this sheet with future corrections
' V' M [ %
_L G s
" n ,/$ ,y y ~p,n' S
v
/ - .-
weaug W /s1p f g [g
~
E g 6 _ e n. t R. . . v\n s j S y [)s i e 4
. F0lA-85-59
~
F 3mL
e
- 1. A11eastion Category: QA/QC 8, As-Butit
- 2. Allegation Number: AQ-50
- 3. Characterization: It is alleged that the "As-Built" inspection program
- usedb7(TUEC)toaddressInspectionandEnforcementBulletin(IEB)79-14 .s .
for pipe supports was too narrow in scope., i.e., restricted to a limited number of systems and types of attributes only; and that as a result, q dimensional discrepancies might exist between the field condition and final "as-built" drawings and those discrepancies would be overlooked. 4. (Teus Utili6es Elecvic C Assessment of Safety Stanificance: 7] A. IEB 79-14 Program The primary purpose of IEB 79-14 was to ensure that the as-built pipe and support configuration was used by TUEC in its final seismic stress analysis of critical piping systems. IEB 79-14 also identified the critical systems which must be considered in the seismic stress' analysis. "The [ Inspection and Enforcement] staff has determined, where design specifications and drawings are used to obtain input information for seismic analysis of safety-related piping systems, that it is essential for these documents l to reflect as-built configurations." (Ref. IES 79-14, Rev. 1). This ! entails verifying support type, location, direction, clearances, and angularity. TUEC engineering procedure CP-EI-4.5-1 defined the prpgram for developing and using the information needed to comply with IEB 79-14. This program
- was to be implemented in addition to the normal QA/QC process, although the primary responsibility for assuring overall hardware compliance with established procedures and drawings remained a QA/QC function.
05/04/85 1 AQ-50 REV 3
.)
- s. '
l
. 1 ,y I
TUEC procedure CP-EI-4.5-1 listed pertinent documents describing the as-built configuration of the piping and support systems, such as Brown & Root (B&R) piping isometrics, B&R hanger drawings, and B&R hanger location
~
drawings. It defined field checks which must be made to verify pipe support location, direction, support type, and clearances. It also provided instructions for integrating this as-built information into the final seismic stress analysis of the piping systems. This program was initiated in April 1981. Since the subject matter of IEB 79-14 was.11mited in scope, the program by TUEC to address IEB 79-14 appeared to the alleger, who was a QC inspec-g tor,to be too narrow in scope. TUEC's program to adri .nss IEB 79-14 as 2 reviewed by the TRT was of sufficient scope to mee' the intent of the NRC bulletin. , The TRT interviewed the alleger by telephone on August 21 and 23,1984, and in person on August 25, 1984. The alleger, a former QC inspector, was on one of the Unit 1 as-built teams and had seven areas of concern with the IEB 79-14 program. Each area of concern is listed below, with the TRT assessment following each concern: . (1) A11eger's concern: Hanger location was accomplished by craft people and field engineers, without QC involvement. TRT finding The use of engineering drawings by craft personnel and e 4 field engineers to determine field location of pipe supports is standard construction practice. QC inspects the location during Installation inspection; the location then is rechecked in the l IEB 79-14 program. 05/04/85 2 AQ-50 REV 3 2
r, . W (2) Alleger's concern: No hanger dimensional checks were made during
? the verification inspection.
TRT finding: Besides the attributes listed in TUEC procedure CP-EI-4.5-1, as mentioned above, other detailed dimensional checks were not part of the scope of IEB 79-14. B&R procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28 lists the detailed check of attributes which should be part of the installation inspection by QC for pipe supports. If, as alleged, many discrepancies were noted early in the as-butit program, the QC installation inspection group shoold have been notified and then should have taken appropriate corrective and preventive action. , (3a) A11eger's concern: The writing of nonconformance reports (NCRs) was discouraged. TRT finding: This allegation is assessed in AQ-37 and AQ-80 of QA/QC Category 50, and was not substantiated.
~
(3b) A11eger's concern: Deficiencies such as loose bolts or bad welds were not reported. . f p\ - j TRT finding: Identifyingthesetypesofdeficiencieswasnottheprj-p ,, Dipal purpose of the IEB 79-14 program; however, these types of de- ' q0 ficiencies, when detected, should have been reported to the instal-h lation QC inspector. When the QC inspector was notified of any deficiencies, NCRs should have been processed by the QC inspector l as appropriate. No specific details were provided by the alleger; however, an independent inspection by TRT, using QC installation inspection criteria, is discussed in section 4.B of this assessment (AQ-50). [ _ (4) A11eger's concern: Orientation of numerous sway struts, as installed, exceeded the angular tolerance. TRT finding: This allegation originated because there were various angularity tolerances applied to sway struts and snubbers prior to l 05/04/85 3 AQ-50 REV 3
- o. '.
April 18, 1984. Most important was the overall installation and j inspection tolerance 6n angularity of plus or minus 5 degrees, with the exception that dead weight supports must be within plus or minus 2 degrees. However the IEB 79-14 program required all angles over 12 degrees to be measured and reported. Of five supports in the IEB 79-14 program that the TRT field reviewed, there were no instances of sway strut or snubber angularity exceeding the allowable installa-tion tolerance. Also, the TRT reviewed documentation for 37 hanger reverification packages for the IEB 79-14 program and found none indicating any support exceeding the allowable installation tolerance for angularity.
.I (5) A11eger's concern: None of the personnel involved in the IES 79-14 program had hanger inspection experience.
TRT finding: The alleger had a misconception of the purpose of the IEB 79-14 program. With the exception of the alleger, the as-built crew consisted of degreed civil engineers. The primary task in the IEB 79-14 program was checking for support type as well as measurement of location, direction, clearances, and angularity. The IEB 79-14
. inspection work did not resemble QC insta11ation inspection and was not a part of that program.
(6) A11eger's concern: There was no engineering review of the inspection data. TRT finding: TRT investigators found that, of the documents looked l at by TRT, engineering review for the IEB 79-14 program was prompt. I competent, and well-documented. l (7) A11eger's concern: Boundaries of the inspection were not defined. TRT finding: Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) engineering procedure CP-EI-4.5-1, " General Program for As-built Piping Verifica-tion," provided sufficient definition of the inspection package and 05/04/85 4 AQ-50 REV 3 l
~
jv
. .i ;; instructions for what attributes were to be checked within the IEB 79-14 program.
Each of TUEC's as-built re-verification teams consisted of a party chief, 13 an instrument man, a rod man, and a QC inspector. The alleger maintained ; E alogbookbetweekJanuaryandMay1983,whichlistedtheidentification + 4 A
; numbers of the as-built reverification records (ABRRs). ABRRs were used in the IEB 79-14 program to reverify the as-built condition of modified 4
pipe hangers. The alleger identified 97 ABRRs as unsatisfactory, 93 of which described hangers with excessive sway strut angularity. The alleger's logbook identified " stress problem numbers" for 37 of the 97 t unsatisfactory ABRRs. This information allowed the TRT to identify the
;- corresponding hanger numbers easily, i
In assessing the situation regarding unsatisfactory ABRRs, the NRC Tech-nical Review Team (TRT) reviewed the disposition of 37 out of the 97
. ABRRs identified by the alleger. In each case, the snubber or sway strut angularity was noted as more than 2 degrees, but none were documented to have exceeded the 5-degree limit. The TRT also completely field inspected
- 5 of these 37 pipe supports. Four of the, hangers were chosen by the TRT
. from the list of 93 ABRRs indicated by the alleger as having excessive i
sway strut angularity. One additional support was selected by the TRT ! from the balance of supports listed by the alleger as having deficiencies ! other than excessive angularity. One of the purposes of the IEB 79-14 program was to identify those sway l struts or snubbers whose as-built angularity deviated from specified angu-larity by more than t2 degrees in order for engineering to review total l displacement of the support during hot loads. Angular deviations greater than 2 degrees were identified on ABRRs for reverifications. Review by engineering consisted primarily of adding the angular displacement due to thermal growth of the pipe to the as-built angularity. This was necessary to determine whether the movement exceeded 15 degrees during hot or cold system conditions. The main reason for this part of the review was to pro-vide confidence that a misaligned snubber or sway strut would not bind under hot or cold conditions. 05/04/85 5 AQ-50 REV 3
s . f The TRT selected 5 ABRRs from the group of 37 described above and per-formed a complete field re-inspection of the corresponding individual pipe supports. These five supports were ASME III, NF, Class 2 & 3. , Four of these ABRRs had documented snubber or sway strut angularity that deviated 1 more than 2 degrees from the angularity specified by CP-EI-4.5-1 In none of 1
. these cases did the deviation exceed i 5 degrees offset, which was the I allowable limit for snubber or strut misalignment in a system's cold or hot setting. B&R procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28A, Revision 4, Paragraph 5.7a.,
" Inspection Criteria for Snubbers," states that "to prevent binding within the clamp and/or bracket, snubber shall not be installed with an offset of more than 5 degrees." The TRT measured this angularity and in each
$ case confirmed the angularity documented on the ABRR. The TRT reviewed applicable QC inspection procedures in effect at the time of the ABRR field work and learned that strut and snubber angularity which did not deviate more than t 5 degrees was acceptable. (Reference B&R procedure 4 QI-QAP-11.1-28 Section 6.3.1.1.d, Revisions 16 thru 23, issued between 12-15-82 and 10-24-83.) The five inspected supports did not violate this QC inspection criterion for angularity. All other hardware attributes h +
were inspected by the TRT and the documentation was reviewed by TRT the i for these 5 supports. These attributes were those mentioned on the QC checklist in B&R procedure QI-QAP 11.1-28, as well as in applicable codes or standards not covered by the procedure. OnesupportwasfoundbyNT " a to have two hardware deficiencies, while another hanger had one discrepancy. ! The results of this field inspection are incorporated in Section 4.B of l this assessment (AQ-50). . l l l B. Additional Pipe Support Inspection l f Since the scope of IEB 79-14 was limited to only those attributes needed primarily for input to the seismic stress analysis, the TRT conducted 4 , field review of QC-accepted, as-built hardware in Unit 1. Thisinsped tion sample was used as a measure of the effectiveness o " ! QA/QC program for work performed orfor to the initiation of the TRT effort. sus
- l Effectiveness of the QA/QC program meant ensuring that hardware in the ,
field was reflected accurately on the as-built drawings and that discrep-ancies were detected, reported, and corrected per applicable requirements. 05/04/85 6 AQ-50 REV 3
,_ 3 . _. __ _
The TRT selected 42 pipe supports (ASME III, NF, Classes 1, 2, and 3) for complete field inspection in 10 plant systems throughout 4 safety-related ' buildings (safeguards, fuel handling, auxiliary, and containeent) in Unit 1. All of the 42 supports had been previously accepted by site QC, and their I inspection packages had been placed in the QA records vault. For the most \ l part, these finished systems were in areas that had been cleaned, locked, j and ready for fuel load. Thirty-seven pipe supports were selected by the TRT, and 5 additional supports were chosen from those considered in the IEB 79-14 assessment discussed above. Twenty of the 37 supports were selected by the TRT from the safeguards building rather than other build-ings because of a general trend noted by TRT management that the safeguards building had been a problem area in the past. All TRT-inspected pipe supports were from safety-related piping systems such as safety injection (SI), component cooling (CC), containment spray (CT), residual heat removal (RH), auxiliary feedwater (AF), main steam (MS), chemical volume and control (CS), and reactor coolant (RC). ringjits inspection of the 42 component supports, the TRT found a number ~ o dnNh[an sge Tables 1, 2, and Figre 1) which warrant further considerationftheeffectivenessoftheQA/QCinspectionprogramin detecting, reporting, and correcting d f iege es on g aga i {g Specific detatis of deficiencies found t are listed in section 4 oftheNRCletterfromD.G.EisenhutonJanuary8,1985, tom.D.fS$
- of Texas Utilities Generating Company. (See Attachment Over three quarters of the supports in the sampling group received 100%
visual inspection by TRT of welds with t paint removed. The balance ' ofthe42supportswereinspectedwiththp$ETft e1d ecause paint removal in certain locations of the supports would have been diffi-cult due to their inaccessibility. The TRT findings of weld discontJnuities were submitted to TUGC0 opera-tions and the QA managers. Ten rejectable welds identified by the TRT needed repair or rework; and one component support was completely removed % andhassincebeenrebuT1tbyTUEC. The deficiencies included undersize 05/04/85 7 AQ-50 REV 3
. s Table 1 Pipe Supports in Unit 1 Supports Inspected by TRT As-Built group *42 Class 1 supports inspected 4 Class 2 supports inspected 14 Class 3 supports inspected 24 Hangers with problems **26 Total problems identified 46 Procedure adequacy problems 5 Hardware-related problems 16 As-built drawing related problems '
8 Component identification problems 2 Weld-related problems , 10 QC record problems 1 Material identification problems 4
, Welds inspected without paint by TRT 305 - i Welds inspected with paint by TRT 89 Total welds inspected by TRT 394 Welds needing weld repair 10
(% of welds inspected) 2.5% Supports involving weld repair 6 (% of supports inspected) 14% No. of Supports Bldg System Inspected Containment Safety Injection (SI) ~ 1-Containment Reactor Coolant (RC) 6 e- Containinent Residual Heat Removal (RHR) 2 Fuel Handling Component Cooling (CC) 11 Safeguards Residual Heat Removal (RHR) 1 Safeguards Containment Spray (CT) 8 Safeguards Demineralized Water (DD) 1 Safeguards Auxiliary Feedwater (AF) 8 Auxiliary Chemical Volume & Control (CS) 1 Safeguards Main Steam (MS) 2 Safeguards Chilled Water (CH) 1 "All 42 pipe supports inspected by the TRT had been previously accepted by site QC.
** Specific details of deficiencies found by the TRT are listed in Section 4 of to M. D. Spence of the NRC Texas letterGenerating Utilities from D. G.Company.
Eisenhut on (SeeJanuary 8, 1985,? .) Attachment 05/04/85 8 AQ-50 REV 3
Tabla $ Pipe Supports in Unit la , No. of Problea Category Hanger No. Problems h
- 1. No locking device for threaded fasteners RC-1-901-702-C82S 2 Hardware problem (see Figure 1) CS-1-085-003-A42K
- 2. Min. edge distance (on base plate) violated CC-X-039-006-F43R 1 Hardware problem
- 3. Base plate hole-location dimensions out of tolerance CC-X-039-007-F43R 4 As-built problem CC-1-126-010-F33R CC-1-126-011-F33R j CC-1-126-012-F33R
- 4. Spherical bearing / washer gap excessive I CC-1-126-015-F43R 4 Hardware prob.
RC-1-052-015-C41K RC-1-052-020-C41K p MS-1-416-001-S33R g
- 5. Spherical bearing contamination (see Figure 1) SI-1-090-006-C41K 2 Hardware prob. **
MS-1-416-002-533R 4 6. Snubber adapter plate-insufficient thread engagement MS-1-416-002-533R 3 Proced. prob. t-(See Figure 1) SI-1-090-006-C41K CT-1-013-012-532K
- 7. Insufficient thread engagement, threaded rod RC-1-901-702-C825 1 Hardware prob. (4 (sight holes, see Figure 1)
E '
- 8. Snubber / Strut load pin locking device broken or AF-1-001-014-533R 1 Hardware prob. t missing (see Figure 1)
4
- 9. Load side of pipe clamp halves not parallel (see Figure 1)
AF-1-001-001-533R AF-1-001-014-533R 2 Proced. prob. k [
- 10. Pipe clearances w/ support out of tolerance ,
CC-1-126-013-F33R 2 Hardware prob. AF-1-001-702-533R 1
- 11. Pipe clamp locknut loose (see Figure 1) AF-1-035-011-533R g
1 Hardware prob. U
- 12. Snubber / Sway strut misalignment -
CC-1-126-014-F43R RC-1-052-020-C41K 2 Hardware problem h>3O i ( /D yM{'
*All 42 pipe supports inspected by TRT had been previously accepted by site QC. y j c.
f M
-- -- _ - /-
A ' T%blo 2 (Continued) No. of Problem Category Hancer No. Problems M
- 13. Snubber cold set dimension does not match drawing CS-1-085-003-A42K 1 As-Built prob.
t
- 14. Snubber orientation does not match drawing Cl-1-005-004-522K 2 As-Built prob.
- CT-1-013-010-522K i
- 15. Component type /model no. Installed does not match SI-1-090-006-C41K 2 Compon. ID prob.
drawing RC-1-052-020-C41K
- 16. No identification for support materials, parts, and CT-1-013-014-532R 4 Natl. identific.
j components CC-1-126-012-F33R prob. CC-X-039-005-F43R AF-1-035-011-533R
- 17. BRP column line dimension does not match BRHL Support not affected 1 As-Built prob.
dimension
- 18. Weld porosity excessive AF-1-001-001-533R 1 Weld-related prob.
- 19. Weld undercut excessive AF-1-001-702-S33R 1 Weld-related prob.
- 20. Weld length undersized AF-1-001-001-S33R 1 Weld-related prob.
- 21. Weld leg or effective throat undersized AF-1-001-001-S33R 3 Weld-related prob.
RH-1-006-012-C42R CC-X-039-007-F43R
- 22. Weld called out on drawing does not exist in fleid CC-1-126-013-F33R 1 Weld-related prob.
1
- 23. Welds added in field are not reflected on drawing AF-1-001-702-533R 1 Weld-related proc.
numerous welds
- 24. Excessive grinding resulting in sin. thickness AF-1-037-002-533R 2 Weld-related prob.
violations (weld clean-up)
- CT-1-013-014-S32R i
- 25. No QC acceptance on weld data card CC-1-126-013-F33R QC record problem
_1 j 46 Total problems identified by TRT i
t Figure 1 Hardware Examples 05/04/85 33 AQ-50 REV 3
- ~ ~
- - ~ -
Figure 1. Hardware Examples
~
. Lood Boit.
- One Nut Only. -
No Lock Nut 7
, Load Pin Spriq l With Cotter "p::"3' Pin Lock'eg
;;r g Device
,': 3- Twood j s;ght - i-M - Hois 1 Ng.' ~
Sway Strut i : -
- l l
. . . j -
.-- W '.
Thee-Gott Adapter Plate 4 ,-
) Pipe Clamp ,
Tapped Hole (= 3
~
Extension Kit
- ~ Plate RHW Not Topped P'pe h Clamp One Nut Only.
- x, - -
t Spherical Bear *ng m;;, e
\
h gj
$ 1u tuuuuuun h w
Snubber Extension Kit :
, } .sa... . . , . . . . . 'W '
g
_a . . . welds, weld undercuts, excessive grinding resulting in reduction of the base material, and poor weld appearance. One support had welds perfomed with no QC inspector signature or initials on the corresponding blocks of the weld data card for that support inspection package. l In two cases, the TRT found that the manufacturer's model numbers on shock arrestor components were not the same as the model numbers shown on the I as-built drawings for the same assemblies.
~
C. Potentially Generic Pipe Support Deficiencies , e i In the course of inspecting the 42 pipe supports, the TRT found potentially generic deficiencies that included insufficient bolt thread engagement, absence of proper locking devices for threaded fasteners and load pins, and excessive free gap at the spherical bearing interface in snubbers and sway struts. As previously noted, the 42 pipe supports encompassed ASME Section III NF Class 1, 2,and 3 code jurisdictions and were located within +. the Containment, Fuel, Auxiliary, and Safeguards Buildings of Unit 1. In , addition to the deficiencies noted in the 42 pipe supports, the TRT found some deficiencias while going from one area of Unit 1 to another during
~ inspection.
The six potentially deficient conditions that required further evaluation l for generic implications were as follows:
. i (1) Strut and snubber load pin spherical bearing clearance with washers was excessive. B&R procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28, Sec. 3.7.3.1, Rev. 25 defined bearing gap as the space between the outside surface of the i
kendog race and the inside surface of the clevis bracket and may not be more e than one thickness of the vendor-supplied spacer washer to prevent bearings from dislodging from their seats. Bearing dislodgement could cause snubber or strut misalignment and change its moment range, or angle of loading, thus degrading the snubber's or strut's loading capacity. 05/04/85 12 AQ-50 REV 3
(2) Strut and snubber load pin locking devices (cotter pins or snap-lock rings) were missing. QI-QAP-11.1-28 does not address load pin lock-
~
ing devices. This appears to be an inadequate procedure.. (3) Pipe clamp halves on the load side were not parallel. (RefQI-QAP-11.1-28, Sec. 3.7.3.1, Rev. 25.) (4) Thread engagement of bolts into tapped holes of snubber adapter piste was less than full. (Ref. ASHE Sec. III, NF 4711.) (5) "Hilti Kwik" bolts (concrete expansion anchors) as installed did not
. 'E meet minimum effective embedeent criteria. (Ref. QI-QP-11.2-1, Sec.
3.5.1, Rev. 16.) (6) Locking devices for threaded fasteners were missing or of a non-approved type. (Ref. ASME Sec. III, NF4725.) In order to further evaluate the potentially generic occurrence of these types of deficiencies, the TRT undertook additional inspections (see
~
Table 3). A large number of supports within a designated area were in-e- spected for these specific deficiencies. These areas were different from
~
those previously selected for TRT inspection of pipe supports. Some of the accessible pipe supports in Room 77N, at the 810-foot, 6-inch eleva-tion of the Unit I safeguards building, were inspected by the TRT for de-ficiencies identified as items (1), (2), (3), and (4) above. Room 77N was chosen because it was a typical room containing an ample amount of pipe supports. Ninety-two sway struts and snubbers were checked by the TRT in Room 77N for spherical bearing clearance and for missing locking devices on load pins. The TRT inspected 40 of the same 92 sway struts and snubbers in the same room in the safeguards building for pipe clamp halves that were not parallel. In addition, 19 snubbers out of the same 92 supports were examined in the above-mentioned room for adapter plate bolts on snubber body transition kits that exhibited less than full thread engagement. 05/04/85 13 AQ-50 REV 3
Table 3 Summary of Frequently Occurring Hardware Deficiencies Area: Room 77N, El 810'-6" Unit 1, Safeguards Bldg . No. of Supports No. of Supports Deficiency Inspected Deficient % Deficient Item 1. Excessive 92 5 5.4% Spherical Bearing Clearance Item 2. Load Pin Locking 92 14 15.2% Device Missing
~
Item 3. Pipe Clamp Halves 40 9 22.5% Not Parallel 5 Item 4. Snubber Adapter 19 *13 to be Plate Bolts With detemined Less Than Full Thread Engagement - Item 5. Hilti Kwik Bolt 24 (Bolts 3 (Bolts 12.5%*** Does Not Meet inspected) deficient) Minimum Embedment** Item 6. Locking Devices For (See Text) Threaded Fasteners
- Bolts had less than full thread engagement.-
. ** Area: Cable Spread Room 133, El 807'-0", Unit 1 Auxiliary B1dg.
***The sample of 24 Hilti Kwik bolts was chosen b73TRT because the bolts fd
- rred t 5
' prp e tte er e p[en!!calargefamountofexposedthreadsgisible.th:
e-9 are f th:t zi:: in th . r;;. ^ nth (stn obylous c~ -D 10/26/84 14 AQ-50 REV 3
4 To assess the frequency of occurrence of item ($ the TRT inspected "Hilti" beltsonelectricalsupportbaseplateslocate71nthecablespreadroom133, d h e 807-foot elevation of the Unit 1 Auxiliary Building. These 24 "Hilti Kwik" at the bolts (concrete expansion anchors) were chosen because of an obviously large amount of exposed threads that were visiole. The procedures for installation of the "Hilti Kwik" bolts on baseplates of electrical conduit as nose procedes supportsandcagbtray supports were the same governing installation M nice expansionanchorsonbaseplatefforpipesupports. TO inspection criteria for items (1), (2), and (3) were based on B&R pro-cedure QI-QAP-11.1-28. The inspection criteria used by the TRT for item t ' (4) regarding thread engagement of bolts on snubber adapter plates were based on full' thread engagement. Those bolts lacking full engagement through the adapter plate were cited,'even though procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28, Attachment 29, allowed less than full engagement. For example, Attach-ment 29 showed a minimum thread engagement of 3/16 inch for snubber sizes
~
1/4-1/2 inches; fpr snubber sizes 1 inch through 3 inches, the minimum ( thread engagement is 5/16 inch. In all cases, the thickness of flanges and lengths of tapped threads in respective adapter kit flanges were ignored in Attachment 29. B&R procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28A, " Installation
~
Inspections of ASME Class 1, 2, and 3 Snubbers.," Attachment 10,.also showed ! the same minimum bolting engagement allowances. The TRT concern is that the procedure was inconsistent with ASME Section III, 3ubsection NF 4711; and the condition for thread engagement should have been certified as acceptable by the manufacturer. It appears that the QC Engineer approved an inadequate procedure for implementation in the field. Subsection NF-4711 relates to thread engagement in nuts, requiring that "the threads of all bolts or studs shall be engaged for the full length of thread in the nut." The same reasoning would also-imply that there be
~
a full length of a threaded hole in plates, shapes, or bars where the required threaded hole length is the same as the bolt diameter. No evi- , dence has been provided to the TRT that partial thread engagement at the snubber adapter plate connection has been given consideration in the design procedures for linear-type supports, nor does it appear that sufficient design margins have been introduced to allow for less than ful'l-threaded 05/04/85 15 AQ-50 REV 3 _ _n .- _ _ _ _ _ _ __
connection. The TRT did not check "as-built" analyses to deter-a mine whether any such variations from full thread engagement had in fact been considered in the "as-built" stress calculations. What ts in question
~
is whether any calculations had been made to provide the bases for the criteria in Attachment 29 mentioned above, for each size snubber being used in the plant. The inspection criteria for item (5) regarding "Hilti" installations was based on B&R construction procedure CEI-20, " Installation of Hilti Drilled-In-Bolts," and TUEC quality procedure QI-QP-11.2-1, " Concrete Anchor Bolt Installations." "Hilti Kwik" bolts were checked for minimum embedment.
, I Two factors were considered in figuring the " effective" embedment for each -
concrete expansion anchor: (1) B&R procedure CEI-20 for "Hilti Kwik" bolt installation (Ref. Rev. 3, Para. 3.1.4.1) allowed minimum embedment as shown on the design draw-ing or as specified by the "Hilti" catalog, minus one nut thickness , to account for slippage due to torquing. (2) The 2-inch topping slab on the floor of the cable-spreading room can-not be included as structural embedment for the concrete expansion anchor ("Hilti Kwik" bolt). Embed.me.nt Length it ut unge of Me bolt a.><.t:end.ing beloto h 3,orf ac.4. of the 4cco Pd. (2.8 day &cag&)
.Sterue.tur2L conc.yetc., u d.afined in b R. inxiructh cliF.T-2 0, Rev.9, cava-Item (6), absence of proper and sufficient locking devices for threaded epaph I fasteners is discussed in Section F of this report. Also see Category 1 *- -
of Tabir. 2 for two examples of supports without proper locking devices on threadt.d fasteners. D. Class IE Electrical Cable Tray and Conduit Supports - The TRT expanded the inspection of component supports and hangers to in-clude a number of Class IE electrical cable tray and conduit supports. Five hangers and supports in this category received 100% inspection by the TRT. Two other supports were inspected for weld size and bolt torque 05/04/85 16 AQ-50 REV 3
. \
l r i g %e. TET~ verification only. The electrical supports inspectedgfor Unit I were in .e--- 1 the cable-spreading room, auxiliary butiding, and containment building. The TRT inspected electrical conduit supports and cable tray hangers to the requirements of procedures QI-QP-11.10-1, " Inspection of Seismic Elec-trical Support and Restraint Systems"; QI-QP-11.21-1, " Requirements of Visual Weld Inspection"; and other applicable instructions for conduit support and cable tray hanger inspections. All electrical supports included in TRT inspections had been previously inspected and accepted l by QC. Table 4 summarizes the results of- these QA/QC group inspections. i ,
,% Five of the seven electrical hangers and supports inspected by the TRT ex-hibited a variety of discrepancies. Although no unsatisfactory open items remained in the inspection records of B&R, a high percentage of inspectable characteristics failed on TRT inspection. The principal types of unaccept-able conditions concerned welding. Most of the inspected har.+,r and support welds were undersized. Some welds were made in the wrong location on a support, while one hanger had a substantial number of welds which were not shown on the installation hanger drawing nor incorporated on the as-built
[ drawing. , i Other defects were found in the installation, such as anchor bolts exces-sively skewed; minimum bolt-hole edge-distance violations; unmarked "Hilti" + b A bolts; undersized nuts; missing washers; and frame clip (stiffener plate) sizes different from the dimensions given on the drawing. The TRT inspec-tions of electrical cable tray hangers and conduit supports were performed l in the presence of B&R QC inspectors, who witnessed and concurred with these TRT inspection findings. E. Inspection of Instrument Tubing Supports , ly & The TRT inspected Class @ nuclear safety-related instrument tubing supports as part of the overall TRT QA/QC as-built inspection effort. Three Class " supports were selected which were located in the Unit 1 Containment Building. These supports were on instrument tubing emanating from ASME Class 1 reac-ter coolant lines. 05/04/85 17 AQ-50 REV 3
Table 4 Summary of Electrical Conduit and Raceway Support Inspection - Unit 1 Support welds inspected 59 Supports inspected 5* - Supports with problems 3***(60%) Types of problems Hardware related, other than welding 6 Unauthorized configuration change 1 Weld related types of problems (categories) 2 Welds requiring rework 41
,. Welds made in field but not recorded on drawing 80**
Beam stiffeners added but not recorded on drawing 40
, g, Building / Area Supports Cable spread Room CTH 12646 C 130-21-250-3 C 120-21-194-3 Auxiliary Building CTH 6742 Containment Butiding CTH 5824
*All electrical supports inspected by the TRT had been previously inspected and accepted by QC. ,
** Full visual inspection was not performed by the TRT on these extra welds.
*** Specific deta.ils of deficiencies found by the TRT are listed in Section 4 of the NRC letter from D. G. Eisenhut on January 8, 1985, to M. D. Spence of Texas Utilities Generating Company. (See Attachment
~
h l ts --
0 g
~
e 05/04/85 28 W 50 AEV 3 + ro y bedert ... h h 6 e 4 e f 0 l a O W*
/
/
/
, /
/
J 9 1 e ..- - , - - - .-. c - . _ _ . ,- ,_ _ , ,, _ , _ - . _ , . m .- - - , - -
l l Hardwere attributes such as location, support type, configuration, dimen-sions, and welding were checked for compliance with applicable standards, drawings, procedures, and other pertinent documents. In addition, the TRT reviewed record documentation for the supports which consisted of drawings and tneir applicable change addenda, construction operation trav.elers, weld filler material logs, and inspection reports. The results of the TRT hardware inspection of instrument tubing supports ravealed no discrepancies. One tubing support exhibited a small dent that was not considered significant. F. Other Conditions Observed . The following conditions were observed during the foregoing reviews. Material Traceability The TRT examined 33 component support packages to determine whether mate-rial traceability existed from marked and identified material through the various records to the Certified Material Test Report (CMTR) or a Certifi-cate of Conformance (C of C). The TRT found that through various logs and records an audit trail could be established satisfactorily to the material sourceandcertification,aslongastheImaterialwasproperlyidentified, i.e., the material heat lot or control number was stamped or etched on the part. The TRT found four supports not identifiable because the identifi-t cation number was either not stamped or etched on the installed material or ! was not entered in the material identification log (Ref.10 CFR 50 App. B, Criterion VIII and B&R procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28, Rev. 19, Sect. 3.1.2). l . l Locking Devices l l l The TRT also investigated the omission of locking features for NF support threaded fasteners. ASME Section III, Subsection NF, Subarticle NF-4725 states in part that "all threaded fasteners shall be provided with locking devices to prevent loasening during service." Noncompliance with th'is requirement was recognized by TUEC and B&R QC who I issued a " Request for Information and Clarification" (RFIC) to TUGC0 05/04/85 19 AQ-50 REV 3
engineering in April 1984, requesting direction for resolution of this issue. On May 24, 1984, TUGC0 engineering advised by memorandum (CPPA 38997) that the paint which was applied to Unit I component supports, l including fasteners, when set or hardened, would act on bolt and nut threads < to prevent the nut from loosening. TUGC0 engineering had performed a series of torque tests to substantiate their position. Samples coated with a multi process epoxy formula were chosen by TUGC0 on the basis of sizes and included in the test. 18 TUEChadapotentiallyinadequathquality. assurance specification No. 2323-AS-31(Q), which did not cover inspection of painted threaded fasteners.
,t Further, 2 23-AS-31(Q) was invoked for thread-lock purposes only with issue of DCA # ,853, Rev. 2, received by Document Control on 8/14/84. The A
paint was applied to ASME code-controlled, NF hardware per specifica-tion 2323-AS-30 (non-Q) which required no inspection. This issue appears to be generic for Unit 1. There was a difference in locking devices on threaded fasteners for similar pipe support hardware made by two separate vendors. In some cases, Nuclear Power Service Incorporated (NPSI) specified only one nut and no locking
,, . device; but Grinnell required two nuIts in those same applications. If +
the design of NPSI models should be found to need the locknuts or their l equivalent, there could be hundreds of pipe supports installed without adequate locking devices. The TRT has several concerns regarding the utility and reliability of coat-ing used as a locking device for threaded fasteners: (1) The TRT could not locate any NCRs, ASME/ANI notification, or docu-mentation to NRC describing absence of approved locking devices for component supports installed and inspected in 1983 and earlier. (2) If an NCR would have been written, the applicable procedure (Ref. TUGC0 CP-QP-16.0, "Nonconformances") required that the NCR receive an l engineering disposition. The TRT has the following specific concerns 05/04/85 20 AQ-50 REV 3
about TUGCO's engineering justification for use of paint in lieu of approved locking devices: (a) Paint-coated threads were tested in the weld shop under normal environment and ambient temperature. Useful life or holding capability under anticipated service conditions, including de-sign-basis temperatures and radiation aging, was not addressed. --+-- A (b) The type of coating which was torque tested was not identified in TUGCO's documentation of the " Multi process Epoxy Formula Torque Test," attachment to TUGC0 CPPA 39209, office memorandum. - 5 The unanswered question is whether the coating tested was CZ
.,,[ 11/P 305 (Carbo-zine 11, prime, and phenoline 305, top-coat) or
'. C193/P305 (carboline 193, epoxy primer, and phenoline 305, top
,/
/. n coat); and whether torque test conclusions for one coating would .
be the same for the other coating formula. Both coatings were 9 f' , ,
'ff; used on threaded fasteners in Unit 1.
I y' - ,y
,' (3 There was no evidence that an effective plan had been initiated to W provide for routine maintenance activities in order to ensure that
' all painted fastener threads on NF supports maintain sufficient
- g. ,-p ? ,
/ thread-lock reliability for the life of the plant, or until the *l4 h ,, ,. paint lock method is replaced by a different procedure.
(,[ ' -
,f x essive Radial Weld Shrinkage
.y.u
., Y {\ '
l,
- p. f 'During inspection of pipe supports under the TRT hardware inspection pro-gram, radial weld abrinkage was noted on nearby stainless steel piping
[\v s mM
welds. One 0welid in particular exhibited considerable weld shrinkage. The
,' }
l.,
,j r > ) -
exhibited radial weld shrinkage was excessive and potentially resulted
't i from improper fit-up of the weld joint. ,t i li s.
l The examined weld was in a 12-inch diameter SI line located in a Unit 1 pipe tunnel designated as Room 850. The line number was li"-SI-1-031-151R-2 and the weld number was FW 9B as detailed on piping isometric BRP SI-1-YD-03-1. This line was an ASME code Class II line and was NA-stamped at the time of " A 05/04/85 21 AQ-50 REV 3
~ -
g the TRT inspection. The TRT sensured shrinkage at this weld joint in ex-cess of 3/16kh, which is a violation of inspection criteria delineated + in Section 3.6.8.4 of B&R quality inspection procedure for pipe installa- . tion QI-QAP-11.1-26, Rev. 16, issued June 11, 1984. 4 j A review of the weld documentation indicated that weld FW 9B was visual test (VT) accepted on June 28, 1979, as noted on Weld Data Card (WDC) 13265. The TRT was able to establish that in 1979 neither the piping inspection procedure, QI-QAP-11.1-26, nor Gibbs & Hill specification 2323-MS-100 contained inspection criteria for measuring weld shrinkage. N- At that time, the Gibbs & Hill specification stated only that " welding at by\' j . parameters shall be controlled to avoid excessive heat input resulting in 9's -\, necking down of butt welds" (Ref. Sec. 4.27.8). On May 20, 1982, Design
\' Change Authorization (DCA) 13,335 was approved for adding the more speci-
;i fic inspection criteria, quantifying the acceptance range of radial weld N.; ' 2hrinkage, to MS-100 Sec. 4.27.8, which became part of Rev. 7 of that s
specification. Revision 7 of MS-100 was issued on December 2, 198 p A comprehensive documentation review by the TRT showed that the weld pack-i age was acceptable. It was determined that original weld FW 9A at this
.. same location was cut out due to rejection of radiographic test number 5478 and was rewelded as FW 98. This may have also contributed to the radial weld shrinkage. '
c-s.gs (,, , u 6, ;
~
-.x~., j .
. _ , , a ., i -
l .
- 5. Conclusion and Staff Position:
), , . . - . , , ., .
., c ._ -
n -o 7 ~r f A. IEB 79-14 Program -,q.
,,77, ., 3, ,
7
/
The allegation that TUEC's IEB 79-14 inspection program for pipe supports was "too narrow in scope" was not substantiated. The-IEB 79-14 program was not intended to take the place of the more detailed QC inspection for installation. The primary task in the IEB 79-14 program was verifying for M= support type,as well as measurement of location (directiogarances, + and angularity. This field verification was to ensure that the as-built pipe and support configuration was accurately represented in the final stress analysis of critical piping systems. 05/04/85 22 AQ-50 REV 3
The allegation that TUEC's IEB 79-14 program " ignored dimensional discrep-ancies that might exist" field condition and nal "as-built" ,.-- drawings was not subsNt # ed 3 stated in n u r x . Section 4.A of this assessment (AQ-50),93 of the 97 ABRRs mentioned by the alleger in- + volved only sway strut and snubber angularity. For the sample of 5 ABRRs selected by the TRT from the alleger's list for field review, none exceeded the 5-degree limit for angularity. On Njg5T February 7,1985, the TRT contacted the alleger by telephone and discussed the results and conclusions _of the TRT assessment of the - alleger's previous allegations. The alleger did not identify any further 2 concerns or allegations. s ? B. Additional Pipe Support Inspection TR.T 3 Based on the 3 inspection of 42 NF component supports and selected attri-b__butes}otherpipesupportsasoutlinedinSection4ofthisassessment (AQ-50),theTRTconcludekthattheASMEcoderequirementsandquality acceptance standards as well as site QC procedures were not consistently followed in some of the ystems and components inspected. .
~
The TRT observed that the characteristics of the discrepancies identified were both specific to individual supports and potentially generic. Fre-I quency and repeatability of deficiencies were most notable with respect I to (1) excessive free gap at the spherical bearings of snubbers and sway struts; (2) strut and snubber fasteners not properly secured; and (3) in-sufficient thread engagement of bolts in shock arrester adapter plates. The TRT notes that items (1), (2), (3), r.nd (5) of the potentially generic issues listed in Table 3 are deficiencies that do not-meet established in-spection criteria. The TRT considers that the inspected level of occurrence of items (1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) is excessive. Thecumulativeeffecg of these deficiencies not being detected, reported, or correc in- ---- dicate a potential site QA/QC breakdown in the QC field inspection area and with regard to adequacy of some of the quality inspection procedures.hha TRT notes that the frequency of less than full thread engagement of snubber 05/04/85 23 AQ-50 REV 3 l
adapter plate bolts, item (4), is allowed by B&R procedures QI-QAP-11.1-28, Attachment 29, and QI-QAP-11.1-28A, Attachment 10. This does not appear consistent with the intent,of ASME Section III, NF 4711 which-is designed to ensure sufficient thread engagement. The TRT was not able to find cor-respondence QA/QC or engineering which" raised the question of possible
^
code violation,Mequested vendor concurrence with less than full +- v thread engagement, or whtek raised questions of how minimally-threaded e A fasteners were properly accounted for in the final as-built stress analyses. sy kaue The of each[deficiencyJnotedl varies. Item (1), excessive spherical bear- " ing clearance, may result in dislodgement of the bearing from its race and
,i detrimentally affect the function of the support. The TRT noted that in each case the excessive clearance was not enough to allow total dislodge-ment of the bearing.
Item (2), load pin locking device missing, could result in the dislodgement of the load pin. .In effect, the support would lose its functional operabil-ity. This deficiency is considered potentially safety significant. I Regarding item (3), pipe clamp halves not, parallel, it is not apparent to
,. the TRT that there is a necessity for requiring the load-side clamp halves e to be parallel without any tolerance. The TRT recognizes that at some point a non parallel condition would be unacceptable, and maintains that an installation tolerance should have been instituted in project proce-dures; however, the non parallel conditions found did not appear excessive.
Item (4), snubber adapter plate bolts not fully engaged, may have signifi-cant safety impact. It is not apparent to the TRT that the snubber design allows for less than full thread engagement. Therefore the load capacity of the snubber may be reduced by this condition. Item (5), "Hilti Kwik" Bolts installed with less than minimum embedment, l is safety significant in that the amount of embedment directly affects j load capacity. l 05/04/85 24 AQ-50 REV 3 l
s 4
' ~
L,,&,..,z.. g . /
"i A- . O t t .t . ,7-l w '. 7b st-/ J t M 'W b; "C'*
G:**l4*"" [k. t.c L L. {vw. C. CG <* G l C" 'I 'wh .a t Item (6), absence of proper and sufficient locking devices for threaded n fasteners, is a violation of ASME Code requirements and may havgsafety + l (significan[implicaticns. _ k b l In conclusion, the TRT staff position is that items (1), (2), (3), and (5) of the potentially generic issues sampled by the TRT occur at levels,that are excessive. The TRT believes the item (3) occurrence level is related to an inspection $ erion that may be too stringent (i.e., with no con- **-- struction or inspection tolerance). Items (4) and (6) may be safety sig-nificant; and depending on acceptability qf supporting analyses and docu-mentation to be provided by TUEC, these two items may also have an excessive level of occurrence in Unit 1.
~
y Based on inspection findings in Class IE electrical supports, listed in Table 4,and the high rate of rejectable characteristics perhaps unique to e electrical supports, the TRT concluded that B&R inspection of these elec-trical cable tray and conduit supports was unsatisfactory and that objec-tive evidence of compliance with specified engineering and construction criteria was not provided. The TRT found nothing deficient within the' Class I instrument tubing sup-port sample inspected. Thedocumentationreviewindicatedthat[foundin the field; and that the in process and final inspections were comprehen-sive and provided sufficient evidence of acceptance, in accordance with applicable quality procedures. -&c- recer-d .s dware cqle4ely and l accursctely repteel 4%e. Nache. In the majority of cases, material identification on pipe supports was properly established from the parts or records inspected by the TRT. Deficiencies found in four instances were unmarked material and omission of material heat number from the mat 9 rial identification log. The TRT's findings with regard to TUGCO's emission of locking devices for NF support threaded fasteners were that QA/QC failed to report the viola-tion of the requirements of ASME III, NF, subarticle 4725, by a formal nonconformance report (NCR). Further, TUEC failed to report the ASME code 05/04/85 25 AQ-50 REV 3
t . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ __ violation to the NRC and was, therefore, in noncompliance with the require-I ments of 10 CFR 50.55(e). f ~ M<c :. . . e ,A n:y L- 19 22. ~xL _ .,
~ ' The QC inspection criteria for the weld joint involving radial weld shrink-agewasnotviolatedatthetimeoftheviualte4t.14 in tion. The TRT ._
of recoro4 % acknowledges that the ASME code does not s ecifically ad ess acceptance - criteria for_ weld f inkage g The TRT requested that TUEC address the sit-uation, especially for thin-walled stainless steel pipe, that weld joints do exist in NA-stamped systems that exhibit excessive weld shrinkage when
~
measured against their current procedure and that the safety significance of this situation be assessed.
.i Unsatisfactory QA/QC performance was most visible in_the ipade_qyac oh'b inspections in the field, a problem compounded b ~escasitona- 1roor workman-ship; neglect of some requirements of the ASME code, n ustry standards, and station procedures; and in one instance, disregard of the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
During the TRT's assessment of allegations in the armat nf desion and doc-
- e on dewe->ined .Wt-> +
ument control (QA/QC Categories 1 and 2)(Ja number of conomons may ha existed during the early stage construction that could have resulted in problems significant to % fi s Whether actual problems did occur could only be determined from this as-built assessment. While the as-built assessment does not specifically associate the identified problems with design or document control deficiencies, many of the problems identified could have been the result of incorrect or obsolete documents being used for construction and/or inspection. The as-built verification effort conducted by the TRT for pipe supports, electrical cable tray hangers, and electrical conduit supports provides some examples of faulty construction by craft personnel, installed hard-l ware that does not match as-built drawings, implementation of inadequate j quality procedures, and ineffective QA/QC inspections. Despite the small l size of the TRT's sample, and conjidering the significant amount of find-
._ og ings plant-wide, there 6de M be a large number of deficiencies not repre-sented correctly in the fina stress analysis.
05/04/85 26 AQ-50 REV 3
~ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
7 Y s ' i
- 6. Actions Required: d l l
-a t f' i.-Q -
.m s. .#
].. . , - a ,k ., h.... 7 I-.w- [- 1'-k; . , W. y h, .f. W~ . ...N.- . )[}ge ,h..,.- .g,n'.., .h h. . . ., , .... . .
.o.,n. c.m.c[t.$7}ea.?:. . y.: .,, ,....-:,.:.~~,...-a.
2 ' . s *. .~
,v 9.
. , . , ; g o e - .4 . . .- g., -
t-. ** v .f - , ** ,.
..1 , g i <, +
,4.5. . . - .. -. 'e ;
* \,.
N
.'.- *[~
' .l, p.% ^ g*i - ,W :. ; '* : l u.
. ..' _ . * - , .j .g . ' . 1.J. .',;. ,.. , . . .-
' % ,_ . %.4P '. . g ./.,%.
,' :. ,3f, .- eye. . 4 .f.W
.. a,. . v .) ...4- .,.- .<h.' e..r . . ,.
c ..
.e
. o. 7.t g_...y
}.. Laf .;.4 3 g'}t
'j,. i{' ;
4p. ;].g '}
.,.', $.? gT. ." . -
,5, t . ; ,#. . , . . . }. .,rc,-
- w-
.- .* ...,- - yc -
~-
r.; ~
. u.. .- .a
. ' r.a a s . .,
- , , . ,y ... % ,g n
-:. .s .:q ,
, . .+ .- '..
. n: 1. u ,.,,..;.:.."., %, .... :
k . . ! . .. ~ .. p.. ,. :9 c ., 4@, g. 3<.;_ 9< t# s -v k. n .. g
-m '. . %. ; . .. O. W. '. ..
y .,;; g
- w. , .> r -. - '
y; :/ g...3_..;...7_.R
..;-g). .:"h. W g.c ~..y.*..
. n.t. .5 ,;.y,f, . (: ; c. y .. _,.. ? .. .
- 9 . . ' y , y,. R Wy .
,' , " . y: , . r , e_; I
>4; . s .
. . g 'l ., N k ' ,.
94 (' e - _' ' ' '
,y.r h 5 -2Jg <,, , g;;..
, " y' ;,y
' ' ..g
- i _
\, .- ; *
,t ,,
I, 'N .. $ . *
~*%.,-.-.y[,'*.- 'Ee
. x-c: [P*.-d [. - ,, . 4.,,,. ' Jj ' :.
i.2 ,sg.g " e, , [ - t ,., >5..- & ,[ . , gf ,.,.,,s q, .
...- y,,* . .
. ~. Q ..., .y:>_ .~- ' g;*
l
..=,..- ...,..J...,.e - .,, , . . . .g 9, g \ .. .- .;, p,,, ....,;. ; -.~.,_.- .~? %,
n ; ;
+4, 1. e n. -
.y
. _ . ,i '.,,-r - f gb u
';#p +.,I',,,**> . r N .. ,, -**' ?4.-
- .. *: : q~%.r.
y'
': ,-1.' '5,
'. , l '_ - ,I
' , -
- y;*; ' .:}4' -"- -*.^;. - 4, M J d
. '! , Y k
. , ' ' . ~ '.e ,.
4:.. g-i' .:.y,p
- d. / ,gi 4. - + .f .-., , ,.
/ ,. - ,- ,. J' ' .f. . ., 4 .
, '. -),g p2
) ;-' " , . - ( '.-
'* '- -S ' - . %ig ' ,' # '#~,'- - . . " . , ,' [ - , ,
a.-a, s ',
.ga ..g V.,
- a. , g . t :. . ' . ' . . ; . . , %, .
2 .- - ..,a"
. .'N.r.
.s -,
'.*. : C4,..J... f g.. '.- ( .- [; .t ,,.9i -' 3.3. -
.4 4 , **s ".-. p. 4, .%.- 4 m -. t ,s . .,
- v. ; - t, t
.jl , ~_. Q .. { ,
p .~
^
*, }( }., [e ((. - i }I . ,g , {' f j f.'. . *-l'Iq}f
,l Q:.~
- _.[ .:. y ( , ..
'w, T, , ,. . ' ~' h .. .
'I .
l l [.* . , - . ~ ' ' . *'
'..?..
,,,'a . ,. . f.
-s
., y
' - - ' W . ,. .
- /* .- * -
,, , h .{ . $, ,
A
) 9 ' - *
+1
'. *g . }
y, v
. . . , -Q:
.h. m. . A. . .g y J a'.
y~ y .- _. .,+ ;
?': -* 2 ,
e ,-
,.., g .
, ;u
.. g ,
, y,' "La .q' : s.
_ , h
,v . .
.. G h ,r ' & .-I ,p ,,r.
. '., . y - - :: .. .~%jq ,'. y..p .,J.- Sj . -'qf .. ,
- .3:3 4'.
^
p
'. f . - ... . f , v .
) : >3..,.~;.
h.
- , - , :,.. , .y . - -
+y
~. -
- v. . ..,v.'y
. g
.. -,4, - 6, W :
p .w i
-,..,t
? -.4 ...'.$.~....-~.l.
<. ,.f .-
=8 c
a g-'- y, . K g, - 4
,y .- , 9. . .'.:
r..~
..r 4. . < . .,
' . . .-(. .-J 7 -y
-- -: . , " a . - ..,[ '**
Ik ( * . - j ... * . ,.,
. I T. g%. : -
, ~ - sh .. : > c m. :,a:!*;s. :-. un. .:k3' -?~. g'N n"
- a.a.xC'. .4.s -
~
y:f.J.N_:A L. .", . %,*d.#c ,,.-
. .* . '; . & l
. . ...-.,1 Ti. - - ,.
3 .,~ . '.? 9,. ' , A .$,' . e
' . '- < . .. i r T & .hi .s *ld 4 , J
- f ** , y ,y. "A '6, '.","r., A .': * . e, y, l-r J ' e. y A , , .. a
- s. - E
.p'E .. -.,,..,,a j .+
=y, ,5 , 't . - .,. .,
, . . . . a x
yg .e - s. . p s-;
.h 3.- ' , L'. g . . ,sh ' % ?- .'
- ' * . .a.
, .>=' . . ,. - * . , . .
' - 1.. . - , ,
.s
,.+.V y -gh .- .
g r,
'.?
[.
- p. ,
l.' ,
.,.__,-e ,
,[ '
$. ' ' ' .[ ~ ' . . " *
.. _3 *@ 3 f(-' i '(' .I ' .
kI w . r Qf- q [ * ' L p .: *< _. g , . ; ; y', , j ;S . _, . . .y y .Q. ; y_+ ,_ ';,, j $3, e =. y h '
; ; U, . , I i- - ( Y f ' '
~
J -'s 's .: p , . . - ' ,.., ,' - g, i, I.- <
,M V.G y_ m -n.
y , :y .4gfs g f % f. mf;. f,.,' gl.Q e.{*, .;-- .[,_ ^ l f ,' { .(~j
\ W 1P
..# n.s,
-.4 , ,, -- A .-
f..% X- - 'v IP- ,
. x' .. y ,;, :>.iy,-
m
,' I n.
[I ;y \ .
.t
. 'i,. - . ' . m %, + s '. ; g". m .. 3
'q ', ;.
e ' ,:-p_ - w., .s ..f y, . .' .y _ ,; ek .. k : k :. kr . r," i e.,. 0 ?-
~. ,.." ,, f . A . 8
-a y '. '.@y .. .. . .; ,* y.,,,~ M.. i dt. N.-. ,-5 :.' % - f3 .i,. ,, ' .i .')Sy.
.y e,e
. <- 1.T 7, .E.-s . ..y. .
3= a.. n. , ~. s t . ., .. ..
.,t... -
>. . s.
9 +, W- T r....y. ~'n. -
, .i
. e - .,.,<<,Y. .m . , 7e ,p.
;- T. . _ .
4 y . sM., 'p. . , y '
. a. 3-:< s% .
.~ w . '4 .- ,,.y.._ f f,/ . ',,
~
. ;.y I k . .' ' , ,.M
- , 3 7
!*' i.: ~
y.-
- ,j - . Jl. ,; . y, , L. : , , . yyy ,, , . , . p u. :- ,., s.,,
..o, q!.
Y .' [ (~ ] -, [k.- E, .h 'h . .". h ' --s,.f 7, ~ '.7. .* h8; .' .. <,
. b qg h [; '..,1
' 7s er .,., , y s x - e - 4,
-4&' '
, .. 7 $, $.g.
...y . , .- .) .,,1..', ;. - . - $ m . . z.- . ,.},.
.... ;, ., +y" _ 6...-. .
, . ; y.
. . ... m .*y
.u. .,
~.~, ,
g
.w.
x v . ,g.
, . . ..~- . .
..y,.
.N ,i V ~ ' .' v ~
. y' ,-
e' -w'
.: 1. #.,*. . $.. 4 r.ite- ..
e-(
,.'d,. : ., . :. w .n ! .-
,.e . . . . . ,
.s.. ,. .
? ' y '_e /s . * * ,-; l h- .
- f. w'-i,,, -
-[ [_ , 5*_f -
w 5 .- . -t .
- p,
.* , ,: t**., ' , a .
3.e .
? [ .(
{. ' 4." ]. ;
? 40: K-,. y , )y' ^f ,. ' Q . ; _'_}.. ..-
f f,. ;p.-hs. L 7- - v.. ly. ; . ^ 7 . .. . s ..W[% . O.
^ '
. 4..
i* i ' O, .. .Q.. Y 3 .' x.W )I Q c..$: @. yw. . '> .&. yya _M. L. . -- . $ . ~_lg. *; '
.c .).[ ., ,~- %j6 w~~f':_: { .ff ly.f , c.}. w['?
W. p . ... h
-f:&- ( f . ,
*+y. f, n.MM,l$lh V f([Q l ;.Q &. n;[:.g.i 4%s:'m;Q.'. xg2 O y,, ;pa sw g.}, , u, w. .
m . magg. . 1 1 05/04/85 27 AQ-50 REV 3 l 1 1
l
, 1 o==== ~
b l-j ,] .[. ' [ ? ,k , - [ Q.ij $ ** "
'_S *- - .{ .l l' r y _
".'. %._l u,- Q ,#
. * - i } .i' - -g
e a, - _ .- A . 3 ,,' g.*.y- S s
t, ,,> .e. s' A . . - --. . . . - - >, 3 ^- ,,
, g .2. 7,
?
~ . . ., j , .9 4 5_ p,,*. , ' .- r' . ;
'.a4g ? . 4 l - ; . f.,.(
, - f. - =9 '
;. pa. p/y' [
- , R. c.,\ ,'.f. -Yay _ . K-ny .. s ).; '
.,g.
, y _ x.n-
.s .y... * . .. ; . 91' , y
~- I
.a - e
.p 'r.z. n..
+,,w,,'-.;
a .. - .
* * ' 4 *; ' ' . , , . . _ . _ ,
l
;, p e, * ..
" g p' Q * ,, ' -
, _. t '4 .+': 1 + 'y'N '; _ S. 4 : '- g -x
.4 .. c. .
.. L ,e g. at m 4 ,. -; ' ., i. t j
_q 2 ~
.r l4 . , ,- .. - ' . q,. e ,
. b. .' 7% U . N 'I .' ,' j j.#, h ' y . '. [ , - [ I e ', ., .' ,
(, ' 9 ; ,._.
.,r-> .s a- --+
,. . .-'} . 0
' .aY .%'
,e . *',';,.,*,*r. ...hi+ - .<,.*, '
.- e; s..*
-n .i .
l . , . .
. : . {' ' .p ,. ., . .
* '. .- g. - ' , l . *N
,1 j f ~.b j .3 f * ' '- 1
.,kY' , 4- [ [., ', . [ _.,. ] . .., $,, .~ , - /& y"! . . , '..
.i , d. $. * '
,, 4 ;, n, 3,. "- ' .
g .. j.p..?,y', ' ~ s
'*. * .- "a . ' .?* - .
',. 2
. g.f..,[p
~ ,. } : +~ H. ,, - . . , " -
4 > ,f ,9 -
..'f ,,~-'%- :,
;. . * .x~; %.- ;
- ( q _ ft ,( ,,. . y f
c.e s - . v' n +
' ,-".E O_
r - -
. . .;3 .
y., 3 .- e . ,. y . ., %- . s-g + .4.,A'cr- e y[;*D.~a
* . 6 + * . , -
i I, .s, ' M e. L
,y, .. , ,
1g: . . .L
.. 6 & w-r', , .. , s .' w, p#.5p w. ,j , .
_..,l V', s < e - ?- 1 + M.'. s. .
-. ,8 ',. .. f,.p_ ; r . ... .
s . -.:, c-
.. n.- . . . ' .
. ..f
.. > v..
A
+" s,.; [..u.
< e * ..m'*.. *,; :. O L, .*
s
.w. .-- ,**} y.s. '. .y* ; e .y. :q
- . . .r . 3 .. ..
.n,,$ p't s l _21:. ~ <, ?!<. .
.* e n. { ,; . i .% ~ ' 'i t,..
fy. . - .'g - '
- ',' 4<'
r \ , y " / _ .~.g q . * - t
. - 4...
e-
,M ; ' . . -
.s;,. ' . if -. % , .;,,: - +
. s _
2 ' V. ,. . - , i'," . . - y- 't }-
i' s ,7 .
, .m
-% , y -, 4. [ . ,. , . . . . , - -
. i -
- ) , ,;t , , , f y g. <- ' : iii .. .
g := ,
,1 . .
n .,.,
>-'* - ., w q ,, , ,* . .y , .,
,s'
.lQn .. . .,'4' , m,- , - r
- Y f ..
4..,...,..' g - y -.L.N td _, l W.y.
.:. ; . .?
- .; e. *: x. .pg . - .-%.,..
. ., +... s. I en .
gr
-n..fg.s_ :L , h _, p.; y _ . _. ..c-?; - *;-
9-y ' p,g;; .
'_ A, , .. .. _ ~ f:" . f.;. ~.;
,.,t..,. p. . _, ,, , _ .. _.= l
. ;. . , y -> ~,.e... -
.,., .r. ,
,. ...< .e .w - s q ,- .s . . <
\
v . , . 4.,
~ ,
. r .c. .. < . , , . . . _ . .
Sw, , . . _. ,.. , ,: . f }p - - , Q m.p.g %[ m.; -~ L fa ." \ 1- ,.v ,w. . s.
% .";j ,..;-5.,. - t.
\ s .-e' i ; _ '; ? ;
..;;p9 ,. . . ' . .n , . - . :. Y ,. : ; .s:-+.~ ' . . , .s .
.w .:
., g. . ,,_..,..,,).., . . . -x *. .,p>: . ._
.4 -
., ,;- , +
--. . g ; p -
, .- . . . v. . . . , .
i
.p ,, s .. .. .,. . <. :
q.- . . . ;. or t-w , . f _g. .L .- ,
' . ? .. .ni .. - . .-.s y, .v-
. .- , . L , ,_ .x
\ 4 - v \ . r . 7
. , ML l
- A N.y O " - ,, ,? .' l f. . _ \.[ .. [' ., - h ,% . . ,, . . , . *. -, _,;
Q- . . ,
.l . . . = g. +-
* . - *'. . ) . 7,,, ,. . _ <, ,
.g- yg
.'-. f glp'f .; g s.
. e , u % . ' <* A -
- J. p f - ,. .
h .- >; . .
'( f
, . . , ~ .,
.o q. ' ' ' .- ;.'.,. j+ . , . < i ' a 4
,V .p , 'f y
.$y. .., 'y,- ..- . m ,.4, . p.
., ,. w , .2 .
. .u..,
, , . p<,.., u --
-e
,g . ,s 3r ; .s1 $. 1 .t... . .
(
.....~, Y
.,......(
g, ; < . - . . .- -.,-; .- ."'..m,. i t
- e,
, , ; . . ; 9_ 4 ,
3; , g ,.,),v t e . ,
, , ,. , gf
, . . . . , e 43 c$. ;,,. . .
1 .~, , .
' , . .. < -s,..,,. . .: , '
v.. c ~ l.l j ' ..&g. . . ..b ,3..y; - ,.N? . .: \_ ..l 3)
- lk,# , . ,'..h- . ~ f ;--
l n. .v.. .
.g..- . i y..- :
J.. - , l 9.-' 4M '.,L. ' , ' p, -.?y.%.' . l
. h; .,-....',%.
~=
* ,' .r
^
. , ': .A ,l , . .,. . ~ . . h.,; ': . ; n, .a y s w -.,M,. . \
l - - . _,s ..- .
.g, j. p, ,L s , 4,{ i,k%, y-
.W . d.t. .
! - Lj - , t- .
, k' , s
- . - .- ( ,
..dy 2
_ a .; .e n
, -r, ',;,*' , 4,
*. 'y '.3
-[
^
w.Q n .-*\-m, 4* +.,'MQ : _.? - Q'~,] .,,.g. , .. ~x . '} r I
', y .r
<-(,'l ' y, ~.,: }. .. .. l "_,...~s _
. , ,s ., , 1 .,
. , ..+
9.. 5.;. + ..u. i , , . , \ ..a.. 4
.. *$ . ':)* .,, - . . . . .
~ <.
* ., .? ,
. - ;. m
. .1 .. ., V y C - , , . . . - -. ,*-. .
l 1 ..
, .. "Y'whN: y .y
' s -".< . . .'e
.- . . '. E' .
', 'f ', *, , ; , , % .. " L ? "'-, ^'('-- .j,. i.* ,/,. ~. - j;- -- - l u.
6 l
. m., , 4 .. ,
' c
.* , - l4, ' [* '
- y. ..
- 3. , . _ ..:.y A
l e- . [. 7 'ye. '
,"p t .
- j ,' . ..* , . .; h :,): g-s , 4 c,, >
' ~- %-
,. , - j' , s f-;y -
s.
-. , . . g.
- .. 2 " " y- a
, e, W. .: N',.,.
4 9-1
+
a - +.- >i;, .-a.:e. . ..L. v . l - f, - s ?.. Ts . 1. . t" .c& . R 1.c. .*k. -~, .J' . ,. -., .
- e c .r ' - ,
..e_
- ,. , .g_ q%, ,- W _trY' . ,. b *. . ., . ..
. . , . . . ..y!, (hm n, p - . ..,y.- s. s; ,.
.J - .. ,, ,
- a. , %. s
..cp- - .. 3- : .
, b. u , - . . .. -
.,e;-.
i y ..,. .. .
, . s.
y,. - S,,e my. .13 - ..4 . * . ., #.. a
; , p' e
, 't,
.:y.kp -, , , , , . . , . ,
e ,.
. 6.
,. .-.f w
.s- - , . . ,-~ 3,. : + , n : - - ,% ., .., . . .." . ~ .- . , .
', .?..'d.
.sc ... * ,,,s.
.k ,_ .%-
1 6s,. p, ',"., . . - ,.,\..".-.... >[?.-- t ,;. - . ,. . .Q. %. . ,*'., . .f i .J'. q&.
. .;>.. y w. ,,
- 4. .
r S A,. . ,., . :
,c -
d . ,. -
' . . +- .' . -r'. , -
e, .
.i. w
-4.j ,- , j3 v
,- +
.r
. . . - j; Y < O. * :7~ . %. .:g t
- g!4 'p*'k. . t.
.. ' . .. '. gg p : ** *i . , k - ; ",'
J i
.. y _. , '
< y f. .O...
' gs
+ ' , -p ,.
- f._ i .
'wf*.
W ..." p y. ,;,1?o.j y. ,. 1 . 74. M. ;ao . .g+ - - - . . . , . . 4.- ,
- w. . m . .,
. .. .- .g 3..;;; *. . e : : .+ , , -
s
. .. i :.$. ; .,
,, y , ,
. - 9 :,. .
. b? y -. '_ [. ,L t
v v -w ' [, . g .if f , * ,. . . . . . . . j
.Y . . ..}. . . . .2 , < .y e.
-* , N r ..
- f. ',
' ' f.jf..
j
.h- , ;; h f
- f. % -
1 , - {, j . ." J. '{ Y. - ( [ q,p}h,' ' . * .m .r [,1,V I E M,. I j
,,.p ,. .f [ D
.yk . .$. . ,? s r ,f, * ? :; ,.
*':. + '
. : ..f. ' 4 g,4 .,.
6
. . . ,7. l. 'n
. ' ,fQgl9_., g,,(. y[?il R- , y f1 - .
-L . '_-
. . .. Z M. - qL.a _f.",.- _..
., w
. t .*... .-J....
,At. .
l g*.w.-jf. 4- a.:Q,. j-~ e g .. .q
. c..-t , ._;,
- .. . . , .. b - (i ? dgy M_w, ,ei 3 ; .
}
i l 1, W [, - UQg ..r S [ . ;-- ];i., f . N *,, ] 7 , ,,. . Y ,.," ,Q fg P'_ .g .7 -
- j. I j') .
.. -,.y
,- ,..t. :. y . . . . , . ,,. .n .. , .
;.c , 4h ,
1'; kj :t. .- ;g; . J . . I v .c, g j
- + .? i , , . - ++ - w .e: . ..
, $, M. .. yJ11fg, ,
i . ;,. . a .. t
- q :n ' ; . %, L~ m r ;7 %_ . . .s..:,.. p. 3y& ;.
I
.s . ,- . . . 1, 4, e . ;; t.
I g .:c . . _ . . f;z f. 4, Q , . . .. , . * -. 4 ;, ., .. l
- x. x g c
; . ig + : :- Mt,,n ~ -
.h '
_w
.. <. , pf. %gi6. .y..
- s. - , & -:; % *Q'm ; . k.
-l~ .+,'..w r
, ' , q . ; n. .w, ).y i
. Jg ~4 e ..s
.;. $. ,? .~ ., k 1 , ,, .
i * )3
%. .-. . .. : -t +,. 9;3.f. .: c.,,.. , . ,
..s.-. . - - r 3 4.; y,. . . p ,; .a.*
1 -g
- ;J.r s n ,
r-. w. ~4 r y .,
-*y A-8 w +y, % ... .x .
- , ,s - ;';+ V: , %-
. ,,pp&} g : t --
t t
/ t s:
. - 'th
'+ .
- +
.- 1 e,
. - . A. - x 4,'
. ,. . s .. pq Q t
,p ". .
, n ,,.
. - t
-q, ;- -4., -
-.yy .
+,
.J{fh{ lv;;O j'.j-l.f,&-[;.[f .
- pv'h; / .:. .
..b.s'h RT m ,. . '.m m - %-. ~. .b. k. x : q- . t: t s.p#M,@;.a.a. u(M. ..,.,, Qg. t . .y g .%y 4 .+m. . ~ . . . .x .
y y. y. w, 05/04/85 28 A0-50 REV 3 1 l
1 l i l l i 1
-s m l d e ., 5- '3 ..c', y
< .t* ,", . -. s m%
---# . .;
- m.
-p . %, w . *.e:-w2 --: .,,
c- , l - - - Z-K ,,
.t, 7.. . : , f, . 'V-.' -
_f : f t ,g.., - r q .. ~ ~ T .. . 3
.<s.n , f is ,,i . *i . .1.,, .* L .y y=,.,, .. . .' J , *>*.r..$ >a ; g;;..
, . . ' ; . .p '
.3 ..w -
1 ., v
-~.3 ; .
-e .a ,> ,.>,, , . .e
_4.- - i.-..,
.,,,,.: -,.,t. . 4 ,: e
- . , . ... - g . Nv+,?- .'.. ., ,. ., . . . y
\
< i , .m .+ , 4 .. ,
L ya ,.. $ * . .a '.K:
..* A, g.:* .(+ .n y. /,y_ Q.t
\ 1 - , - , g '.. c . y ? .u-
- f. . . s .
s . . , , .[+f.. 3y y .!< .. . c s ,_ ._s ' - ' . , . - . , , , , _,.s s- , -,
,_ .. f . ,_
- y - -' . . ; ; '- .
; ) ; ,;.y ' - ' ;- '.-.,.-;...~;y.- 3 ,,,'..,- .( _39
.r- s..- 4 ,y ; <l. .- - 5; . , . , . .
.; , 1 .y ':
*y#
f,' g . q yr eJ qa . .; ,-
.g Q,y, w, , ,
. , ;) J =~) (, f j ' , -_
-?
- . t .
.: g.-
.g l
L .u>::g.: , ,i*. . . _r., p -?! ,; ",_ :
- y,y. , ;; 1
. .g ',g.
i .,9,, 4 -
.. u ,.
.y.47_& w. . . ;.: .
.'. *.,.i ^ . : *.- w E,? ' r .Y. '- .,-
~
'J ' ' * \, '-
.2
.%.;./,~,h ., + , N, -f ".- 3 s . . v
.. . ' , T f .a ; e .
*; g : " t..,c., . ;'y'
. . . s
- j. ' , -. _ ' '..
e
', y - st .
. f . ,'% . . . ; ,._ . . f; .V y-Q 7..
b ' ,,. i 1-[k . . . ~ - y j 4 a *- ,..k,, (Y' ' '_ ,s ...f- /= 6 i., g. . j . . r.'m : ;.' ". v, - - - , ... ,p ..,v.." 7- .
+1.
., - .A , 3 ;. r, ,-
...m ;
r
'fn. . * *.e 4 .
, ,.g..
h
.l f *
.I
.- j' j.f f, .. lE h e.
. ' ' ' , .p t,
,_.,f,-
p
.'h l-
- g. ' ' ,4. h . ",;. . . . - * :w_, m-,t sg,-m. .s&, .g,f t' %,
6 2 .4 . ., , .g
- g5 :. ?.* ij--
;- . ., 2
*,.e3&. = ,., 3.'.?'Uy} ,' ./?;y , ,.
W ' . ,. . j . ;
- ;- . b. 2: " -
- t_..
, - . , . 14.; p .n, ' . ... e.- s - F- s;Q _ ,, !- 9 sf, . .-
' e- .
%* .- ._ '{ R : -['." ;.ok
'",u /w 1 Q'.,'.
' ' - - - - 4
., .- jQ'. ,
},_. - .
-.-S
~, r,.
,,',%,3'
., ' . i;_ : .. . , . , .. . .<
.- : . . . . - - . ?>.,
u
-. 1,
.s . . #,i ,, . .y ...r w
t -. .. p(, . ., .
.,# i* ... , r. * ,. ', r jr, N?
l [y
- q f *, . ,i [
y,qy" .;g + , ., .v. ,.-[,,.,- q A e'.
. g- ,A g.,,,
,- . ,e ;~. ' ,-=. ,. .,_ ' , . .-.. ,,
ll7
.a '. . gpg.
c.J . Y .g.... ' . * ~i
, . , ., g - - _c ~
.n w ,Q..
h gf
. .. . 4 %~a e; .... V .- , . ' '
, ,j ., q .,'E e
s.
.e,,% . m-*
y,, 4 tg
.63 s4 . g , ,-
. y
- <. , ' ' - m i
c .. %.. pk. - ..,. . .:y g. . .r g= r ..,.,,. . , ,*
.t,..
.a.. - - .
( e .. . _ n r. .-',... y .es.
',* s. w - eg*
- i. . g.
- s. - . .
;l;=,. ,, . . ,'. ,.
'- - *, ., p. ./.. , '
r ,. ' f .,;, y .. * . y'..1 g ay a, %,,
.y - - 4'
... ,e,,- ,*..
e F
$,l', -y+ * , - .L ..(., y5 ,
f; } s s .- y-54,, . e p i.,3,,.>,- --- .. . . . - . .. .
- . f.
. . e..
.'. .. .- . . - , <_>a .'..
s . as .n-s L a, ...i
,.o<
.t _ , . -, 'SL
+
a g..
. =,
F ,'ei." , , t _} .. .- .. 7, . ., ; ,y, .- < *.,f,.,_
- 1. . e s, .- = - s. , , . +. ., s s- i
-e -
._ .", -- y-N * ' . + *-.
. . . . . 7. /w -' ,'.J
'N . v,/ ,>j ,d .- r. :Y ':
.i ' - .* -2
[ w r" 's 7. r,'n.E ., f . I - - a
. ,..i. - . - -
y .r .5 . m.
, g- f . .%' ' 'Q , f g3;. : ,N
, , t '. ? .jV , _4 ' - .le' ,, *g.y %- : .
s lrf '} ' r ' 4.y 7 ,, ~; j ,' ., ' .* . ,-* . ;".,e .s.-~ ; ln ' - , ,
- 3. : % =. { - ' ^ + i - j - s N ,. g' w
e',.i , . ,, . 3 s,, ,r ;v ,- g . ~. - . s, . .'y , . >> '. ,
.-, :+ . , . .
,p
..u - .
I Q
,O.. ,
,, 4.e.- ... *.( -',.
. N, W 4 - .. .'
y
,<',',.b',.;,+.
.1
. ...,g a .
y-x r ',b. , . G , * :, y
.. y {...a
...- ..g, .n,.~,'.~,...
.L.
N* 3...f. .; ; ..
- . ,; y ;
c ..y , 1
, , ' . .y_ .?_,. - -- 4-
- m.. - -, s._
. ,. , .t..
-. .- 4..e .
5 t(.5s,.,. w'
. .*y . gy k -
e; . , . . .gr r?
.. A s - + , .
's , .
2 .
'.,, . '... A*- .-
'..' ) . . , .
+ .>
I1. .+
- q, . 1 .. ' . ~. ,. a -- !: , . . . .i,; ,.f.">:. .r . . -
t - ,. .
,. : . . , . .h:. 1 .
u.
-p A i. , 2 -
,.n, - .. . _ '
1',',. ' 'p' /
- - ...v
- y
+,
.t. . ,4 . Et ..e ;. .j .,..
. M dd
. ,' . . 4* ;$ 7.s.. hP..
.'a 4Ey 1 ' ~~
p,. p . f. '
'.. ; % 3. . , , p 4 3, g .. Y s y, ..rb Y -
SP ' F , -[
-\ x ,} fj'i * "'T g.h . ,;,( i . I - * -[- . , . ,.,[,. [ 'u - }
. . : . . v,x v..,w ; . .
,? p, m.~ . ,,. :. , . _ , . . .
- g. ,, , yJ,' -
' .'. # .fgM., .., A,, ". .: .f'."u:_,a .-
..- o ,, .. . .
- a. .,4 ..*ajy., .s.W
, J< ,s. t ., ,; .*
. . y,p . q .c.g.e,. y. . 1 . g .m , v.# ,
i
..--.......r'.
. : t . s,
. .{
s..*8q."'tg,
$.h ,%b...y
. .v.*,o$ Q ,, ,,- =
,r. . e0
,.g,.,,* , ...7 '4ls-.
-+<: y. - -
>s- '. .-s
.[ i1 .s,
- 5 .
M .
- Q C.^. n.: .,'
.. ; l " g . .."ql
.' ' . -, . ',' . *? . )# ., . 4, y}'h' ,.&p .,l, f. ;
}:.7 4 +. plap } m.,k ', .. '. R:Q h4 . '.) _
u m . ?.: n) . . . . .,.,.1. - . l ,. + . . . - . ,,
. ,u _ y,.. . . .3:.. .,
n . a -
., , .r 3 ,3
....-s - g t. _ y ,
- f. , 7
. . .N f e' 5. ' ,N $' L ' flg. ' - *.
.. $ -. . ^Y }. <
.f.^h ' Y 1. k
,.. j '
y.1- M w y - ,~L y.. n. - ? (;f ; r;b Q f. f,. . Q.,: . 3_G% ' .- .y , )_f..
- : ' vv. .. - -'* ^d fg I ' ~ '/ J.Lbr: -_.6 ;.p*.-,
J v -a . v
> r. .. .s -
p .,.' .# g. e2 *i 7.ss 4 --
.'K..
- ) ,
; < -(
b,. y " s.,..ep t .- -
,.g *: (7 ,- . 1,
,..C' q., .g
,,'.y
-v j f.
y -d,h #.0 * * , ,
& Js 'g A , ,.- [ ,
~-
+
'.q, p ,y* * .,, , .
r
- 1. .i ,,
,? ,.. . ,
% - , , e .
y .. . , . - ; ; - . gP. . . . 9-
,A . . *, ( ,
8,I d' [# ' . . , , . 4 i ," ",
- 1 h J. ,,-,.c.,
Y!
~ . p r. , . ',
p' .4, -g: i ,- ,
. g. , :
-s m,i ' fm' j. , ~ ,y : ;.. - ., tf-- .
; - - , , ; ~ ,
-s s,+ .
a
'...,.".jw ... -..-#,. . <
- .q. , ,: : : .,w s. . ;;% . .- - ..sy. : ,., a , : i x,- g.
., .5 s,.. , , , .
.n,4, ,
L. , . g.. ......_i. +f , s p, s
.-s* f,. .s ....-<, 3. = 4 .c .- . wg , a s. :
; ,.,.. . ~ . - p g_,- - - w
..:;% ,- , . 4 ,. , :, .,. 9. . .at h. . .-. ,,.. ' ..a...,
.d.. g
,.u..
- ;. .sy ., ~ ...
. se. e ~.;.- -.
y . ._ . . , . . .
. g:
. - ,;~.... ~ q.
. i. se t . .
, ,7 -.
., 4 -. . s . ;..
m., v. ,
- 4. s
- c. 5
,a.i...,.- .:. v/. .
-.c gMy (, 3 .
4
.a , - .,
.s.+ ..n t. . -4.-,
r..ty 4.( &. .- ^ ~ j.'. . %<. .;'. ' -?J % , **'
,a .: ,, - s -$
, ' Q .s
. ,. . < a d'.- y}. ~
Q; . . %; i.} 7 j ". ' .l , f.gh.fj : y7 h N-j .}.# . -', ' p L y., ". - , .{, ,[- -3]'./.[ 2.. . V, #
.k J
' % 1- .; . ..Y, , Y. ) p Q > p ] ;:: ,[ (g 3 'f; -#, .s:. W.H, ~m.~,:nAy* . A..; .- =s s L . L .L ; ic.. _ .J s%s..~. - m
,; m.%. .+4. #a.s d
- s #,'a' , f,7 W .
.o J ;
y'- i * . '.'., f, .,, *. .e# -
.k. C;. H ., n. -. . T , S .(" C ,l .f.; '.,pf- r" ..yg ,-Q, ; ;e. -
= . < y.a ..n ;. .; y y , m v- . s. , . . . ~ > ,; . . ; ..c. . . ..g
.#j Q4, .y&:aq. .r.
e-.- a ..g. s,_. , y ., 7%--~ ~~ + 7let. pg pp,
. g.y.-A:. Ap q+ . H .~ .u
'p : .i 44. q . p;"
; 4j.-.;.;
. . - J y ,. e,--;, p n:.'.' %.c C
, p ; . .
; 3 r/J,,. . .? * .m 4 4
. , . r .; s
.. .; .. er *. m p, g e sM .3
.R K ;, u. Yht 3 .A G. h.
'.4
. ; ci r . z b, .Y y . y .>. f, e .: ,,, ?. y.f k . .y'.] 4 s. % - k' . > T' g -
- h. p- l*.y ,c :. ;n. . ,, >,?. 9 . ,3 .( n. . ~ > - ;s
..v..,. , < :.. - ~- ' .: .. . ~
. . r .m O : ,+ xt , ,%* ; ',.%-;. , . .a -).k .l' ) * '&, .. As q . w* .J,,:
k.y5L gn,:i. r_l*l...(Q' .. n.b < k
.'w : ; u.
, .. . + -
@M[?.
. : G,; . q . ,3 Y yt :l' 1f ,,. ,' y: ..
. 7' . .t L .? > w s z,w,,r. m.....
- .. ,~
.L;
+.a
- a. .,
., 44 .; . ..\<,.&
. . y i.',, . ., .. . . , ,, . ,A c <
. ~;.%
....v . .
.~: .
a - e
... M:gf.V! q,q Wy(a..... . *,,: e i. .;k {m -".-
' y 1,- N.. -t .
.:q $ -n(d - yD
' . , . ...(
n - . ; . -;, - k g:~.c l , ,4-A
,p. " ,g i gi * .' # , [* . g- 4. .4. j m,? . . . . . . - . .
- s. .
..s.. . y: s .%., . . ,m,. e, - s %. ,g . 3.
,c...< p%q! .
i W'. ?, Q5.L.'. L y .. f . . _ ; & ._ }x [jr,p;,3Q,.) p.4._ f, .
, y .i ,s.p .' y 3 .y Q..,. .:
,. . v .a .- w . :. . . . . . , . -
7 y ,, . . , . _ . , . , , . y .,, . . N
- 05/04/85 29 AQ-50 REV 3
1 { ?,, {.' f < > . -.,. . . -
- ,. . . ; L'h' ak. -N.- ht c-J'iN.A-Me ' 4 ' ' d.
-[,
? ' &f.; .%.r 2 .e.,r[ . 4-sNqf 'yU? _',y'. s. - %. n' W:es- .h. e. . , '. n .,7p ,i *y ,. . ; , .:4 - .
g,. , ;..t.,.
" .. . -l
; ..<< 4- 3. 1'7- ': . ,y, ,.y .gc. '*s.4:;
s r
-. , . , , -y* . .d y 'v.t._..;..,;_.. ._a.
; .w .: %.; 9._p i, , , .
97 .I. g,
. ~ * , . ~ . . . - c ,y l ..l V .'.y - (n f ..Yb hy
. N, '
Y-
.:<. +;;
; E
sy' f:f. y, '*4^~ in s n
, - , - .
- j'y -K ; ' , .
'4' ' ' . . . . . . _,p. ,
a t * - Q . ~$ .; . ;.; .. . .~ . , .9-.#..,,.; y._a .y,9; g n ,. - " '- .+.. ., l e'.* 2
% g " .- .,2,, ; Mp >nr
- j.' . r, % y L A: _ .,. ,- ., . ,., . p , .'.h
- L, yl c . . - ,
4 - . g<. _ ..
. ...w e. s.- ._s--
. .y. ~..y.y
-u ,. - s - s 1 n s . - . m.
y y .p y , f. ,[..( - -_~ .- J;.M -;-Q,s- :i; . ,,' ':[ .9. -}-s.Q.:,
..,&i.
~
s ;.F. "v.Q p; (af{.fe .[.n;;, &
- 9. ,- &J .._..
;. . , ' . - ,. .; .: ,;^ g . .%.
n . .. : n
.. -l p. - .. ..,:. .
-
- k_ .. f ;',;; -g . - "-s ' ;p y*. , . ' ,e ^ .
- - y l l ? Y.f } ~{;f. __[ ' '. ,(. . g ' Q f ,. ,,, .* 't _, f[':.l,' ., .
;} " ':^^f fl, y, , l f.1*~l j
, . 9. (<,.s
-,c.,' $. ~.. .f ..~.,.< , , e._ .s -[,.4. . .- ' %, , J . f . l t
A. --s a, A,
.k '. ig .
.-.h .\ _y,ej ...,.'.'s ;
y b
. . , ..w.... . ljI.@ , , ,. .
- w. ; . . ....3 L # ; 1
,7 ., <m
~-
- h.
,, x. -) J r . -. .., . - .
s*. s . ..
.- ' -' f;g .x-s .-
;2 ,- y hr ' t-p. . .-pe--,.- . :
6..,. r - %.: ,%. .,,.' - -
.. v :
J; :
- m. ,N,j' Q ui s."
_a V.2-
.,,,%-p l . _> s.',; g , .. p '-_., . u'.,.- % ,_ d.
'.n .
s __ 1(;z. _ y,_~ t .x c e.u e .e '- e n- . . ,s . ., Q- ') Y 1 Ll'*
., 4
. 4
- 7. .z:f. -fj i ~} n. *y.
- e .,
z, ' , : Q ( .. r%. %- ji 'v
,W-l*. ,k 9 ,sg
- M 7 ';. " v ir f' f
a .g,'); a.: ..;.c. ~ ,: y + +- -,, .'- uj_ __ c, .;; ,-
. a. . .g - - n.
,+g- .* . , . .- A.,,. eg;.8;
.-e,. , -,
c, *~ - ;. :- s gh. c
, ~ . ny; x ,> y v. .y-s
. ~yph.
g.. ,s ~ ..,1 -- - .. 1
, a.. .; , * ,
r i + -
.- --wr
, . + y.
V + . - r v.v.p. --. .- -i ., .--h' e. . . . .
-t w ;. *
.,.~,.4.
' w,n.. .>ei f s o 4, -
,. m-.v.. q' . , g. 9 .-
r.. v..
. ., .9. ;.-^ m. ,.~.s c_<
a+ pg. -- y 9 .g., .s * - .. ; * , . - .
, . . , .;a -:. - . .g
.;; < L s ,, .: . ; .
, 7 - a j .;s A; t 3,} < , . y. 3; ,; ..; :g a. ep g, af. , ; ., t ~, ,, _ .3 _4 .,_ . 2 : _ . m' , y
, }* , Q,.:. -f n
. .g
,g.,(., ..w,; ' *.3
.. . .s
%. g . ',. 4qf ,9 py:y. <;.-
yV . '; .. v e e. . c;- 3 s ; % % .% c , . . , 4 ..A.. 4.... ..
..~
.x +
_.y, -
. . . . - '-q' :x . , O r_n: r .f
.v +L. 3, ,.g, dk', .y . c.::lf ,.%.; -
;.. .; - s, - . .e
. -a y . .-
xg. ~., c~ r. - -> . . g. '. . . e - '^ - %c '- a
- p. .:..- , :
,
- 4
-yi. g- i p *e: , -
g'b,. j <. 4, a .c A g-
- W ', , ..@1.-, ,* s: , , 4. .n 6%.- * *-n- >,. ,' - ..' . ' *-
*e .; k v ? % *3
,nv :' ' g ~ =.i, --. < . 3. 2. ' '.. i ' =-
. '< mw - ,, : 3 .v .m - .
t ' .;* * ' '"L..--
!y& . .; )
l'
." [. . .,
f}. d.& .y
' ' &". 7 '- ,' . ,
l q. . j
- . s ,..~
- x
,sc y; f,
>g. +g
- . % a-.p>& 1LV n. ,. *%, : , . . . , . -- . . .' ; .t . . ~.
- v. . +
,4 - ,- - .,
t
. . , . ..y 37
.n p - ,. ' -f. -. t,: ay *ct (e s
+
,y;,;.,... J, $7 ,. , ..
.t'yJ- ~ . ,_.. -- ,: s. ...'. W.a"4,. .% .
;,_'s, f f .c.- .c e c -?- .i
.v 1. w .,s .
; +g 3, ;, - . , ,,,w . .
a , . ,,
..u... -.y , .: , ,, _ ; ,q; 3 .3 ac_ y, _v'..s u - - +c .
-1;. sw ; . ., , , ~
- s. ~ .m.-., .- , g a
*,,. ; -s. .,y.i, .;.r, ,1 .w x .. .,p.
.t .
a -. . e.2mn .k," q : %, -> .., i...,$.y. .- , -" l ": ;m -
. . . - y- w, ._ y .,"n=.
. ; y' -
3 .. . ' ..
,g.n~ -
s: $ . ,
>,< - ..y' t . f:%, ,n+ ,: 7 M. ,.-%.'.' .
. ',.; >Tlq;s.4q'* 4 -:. .,,s.
,. .x' :
kr,i.h'a., n
- .. }, 4 c ' ' . ' .;
y .y
- a. <
4 y- ..~e
+ . . . ,.a v*
3 ,. - f% ,..?. gi. J
-I*
'i se s s, <=o, s .%
Y a.1, ? .+- , , >- g .i . . n ~ ,...t .fg ; A . a . v. ,s ise . . , h - i
, ,[' j - ?. - : , c-_ .
. ,, , .;- . .'^. ; ( c. N .k.I ,
+
-8'...
..e
-.'d. &. .. .$ - ' g' fG. . =. . m . s .Y h.['x ' ,e.g P-.
i, ' 8-si * ~ (. J: e '
~,1 '4;* ....-"*g
]'. . y ,, , L; _:V.~.;.'"
u y
~
s
*,Q'.,'
s' ~ . . : "* g : . ']p%;.g_;
,J.,.
&.,.,, b y '. f = %.f > w,)+ .{ 9 % u
- 'M f , .-
j? v,jf.V ? x.. . f.n
~
,e ij ' e_ji f .-; ,4
,n- ,.3z v I'g, ,.
@ k pr .
~
E
- v .~ c ., .
- .,..I2_
, . .4
, e, f , - - .: - _(* . , . .,
N- -. }( ' '^ 4 , ', c., , p .: - ,
-f.;; y ,,
p- ,".,,
.. [ , ',. j ,. . .-
','^ $* . ] [. .. . d [, , ,. 0 %y [ ' .,, .
.',,, ..... .+r !..b f b.[_,ef.[ '.* . w a .#. 'g
. .?Q (- -f' j nh 4.s . . ,
. _. l, .)g . ;,
.y[.:l ' e .'f - ' - . , v ' ; .;.
. -: j . ,- ' j' .*.l' '
. :' d- r ,Q k . ,' Q n , .,
?n m$ Jl. k .f; _ ,....w. -p . ':. _._{.. . ~ _LfQ: g[.y f 'gg y.Q_ , '}[;3
,. ,-;. , .. g; , - ._. , g.j .. -. ? f. g . 7h p(# < . y . =.. g g
.. ~ , y '. .l Q.:_.
s-p y *,' .j.:- , .
- s. ~ . -
.i e" -
.. [. .N I ,. 9. : '- . ! . -
.- T Y 'iA . .
. . ..', 4, . ' -
;v . - .,
f, .'- _-; ,. j. y.. - f ,~ .q.o ;l*
'.x, 3 4 w; . y _ , . , - , .x . - ,. ;, 'lf j .* * [,,','
'.e,s,8 .g?g4. 2+ '.v .,.s..s,y'v.:,j, ,1-
[ , ?- ,. - & , . , >. , ,g3.a g% > ,,
'r .- .
Q s; ., ; s
' ,a
- s. m e
1 - .%. ... s 1 W
. ~ .-;. . . . . .y-..,. ;
u s'.,..... . ? -n ~'+.*C . .
- w. . ;-
r_-' e
,.~.L.W- 4 -
r .4- s
,,,.,% .s..~..:
v - . . . n
,, ,*$. ,' . gc m.
9 , V
.+r< }., ; . , . u; n. 3 -f- .... *. , . , , x y.. L
- v. 9, .-< s - -
%s.iP:- ' 'q n r ,
,. R q ,' fp. ,
q qf y t?. pY :,'j;. ...g, y ? ;>y' r % E .g;s;% .,. '
.c-e m.
y_. ..g'g qq.g: s. . -r,y. . . . c,3 . .. g ,. -i
.. .., . . _ ,.: y. Q '3.
+
l R.. >. ,.-f:; ,g,-,y;;3' l. % ^ . . . , ,.., ,. . ,s'r.,,s ..,. _ ~p., p. l a,1 -. , A% a'.
,'.y
. A 33 .
J
. >. . . .:..r...
% ,.. ,- ? . n.~r.- - , . b. - .,,3 i.$,..,
- a ,. w' n .
t .
. . .i ,' *^ .*---f. }.?c ..*
r . , ..a.. l;%. , .. :P, ;- ;- - }
. '+ -
*,: *, g n. V W..w. w. r.,.,.?w. , e m, y *
(>*.au -' '...
* ~
k . s, u ~. y . :.e - ..:. Q qQ u ,
- N2 4, ' ,.<,'y., r, . , ly ,./. jw .~ %~ .. .> = .- e:--.c.,_='w"-':'.4 y* Q* , +. %' % g ,. ,,. - _.,,
s w.
. , .cy. 'er.p. .?. g -
< .7 a .- .-
* -s a ..i 8 - . ,
e' +>. tCg'es .n.,5:. s,.. - . ;.
*r
,, y :;- v g'.,
~ ;- ..
* . .*% .J, -
. *, h b.' -
*"Y. * .,*
g- # 4y.8 i 3 * ,. : ; c%.; m. c + p"'= .? .
,( - ,
- x, , '- - - ,n. ? .- g
...;g. .,.r .y. ? + g y: 4, . g g 3.,. -
4 e ; -_- *d ..g' 5 ,
~.
d.,.q;: & .v ,.6'..y 'h.: s..'.-9.f<.','.' '. '... .;1 '., g - - .
%.9 R 'Q. :, ';.':; . i X.l,. z.
- f f - ! .r . ' , ' , v. - I, ' ,u u
.3n. h' \
-x 4.v......
s a
,. V .s.).w_r 7.' L . .k.,, ?,, L ,
3 .. c . < ': n s
,. . . w , :: .y.
- .. . ;Vi-if 9-y.-.. .* , ~wr.=' .n
- # ..p ,.'. .,; q. 4 ..y..g. . ;* :
,t,q & r c -- , . -
. - ,n .. ,, ., -n - - ;
s
, .. s s.s .#
.m. g o;e.' :.3.
c-+ 4 .. . .; -m ;
"4
% " ? Q.,.Sa' ,; - ; '. ' . ~., . L'.' .'.
- :' w.V.,
% ..., %- n :.4 ,,n.o% a.g ./. . n . :. i . a, h _.gs'.
e %-
. -;.9.-4,f,,-s.~ ' * . - l h: c .b .
, - : p- -
=
++
6- 2. .. w. - s ' msm;. .rw .t;;a. i w >s s- + +
- c. ~
l w._ ,.......
- v. . , y,s .~ . ,.c .+yw c c> . '
- c. a> e ~.m.u..A. . . :.; , n., . e ...,, *_ n.- ^... > a> .
v . .: . m. . .
. . -4 y .n. m .{ .g
. y. ,
; N - ..n ;.. - a n' .: . 8 9 . . :u. e.
.y
. m.*. , . . - , -
-s - e c .z ; . 1. 3 .,m;s .a y p ..a. 'm ~ w w.ty.y g j
- . n .y.
t .1 . , .,-A . :. 3.::.,. :,. s' . -z s.y ';4. g., y c . a. . ;wn 2.x.7.~(y j /. , 'im _3,p' " y, a g g ~.- . , . ~- h.g
.: ~.r , . .c p . . . . ; - a ; . ,.
y- y,
;p I
.p; - < . 4 p. M.=..
p q. - :. 4:p
.: 1 s;-.%, y= ~ :. y . - .
. +;.> ;. ..
3 . , eu w .- p y. n
\
;.p. w w - u m ; -( p-e , .j , _. . c .x .,
c. n -y, Jir. l
~
@fi V.nf;1;.;'. .n
\.-
., \v; ;' ..>,. '1 c .,u:.,m.4 ,[g%m. . k. M_xp, ' ya.:. .W w 5 y g.y AA;: f '. .e u..,
. o - y q'.n-. 4d . ,s'> r.y w q .. . <
t. l
. l,<. ;}l' y;'= l L'ij [n . y"$.e E.l: . L.h, '. .s. _' u Q j Q:(gfJ.Qg&. 4,.. ;-lL: -d : _ . M ,_ % '.' iKQ.O. +.,c
,Q ~
- _. .'. ~
. . n, v e. '."
.)
_ c, ,,
..y.. r .,p,. e., n
-, W e, r. - 16, - - y *. s . , .m. ., 4, n.'acA
- v. ,g r.q._ ,>+.g.a
, ,' # _ s ,47. .
. r, ,. ., . . ;. ...g m . ,.y e, ' _ '3
.e .z
q..<'*
.v . ., a ,,, .'t. c- .v.. , ' , - . ., 2
- g. .
[., ,g ) [ g, .' # t 4 ,L j .. [h'$ h .: ..'$ ([ E , j I ".. yI['b'
' ,.y.y ; - r ed-[Y IY[h;,t 7- 2.. .,A h
[h 1: 9 : . . ;. r , ,.p ,f* '.'[L.,,.; r y e$ . .': M %%
- .u & .93- . 1
&q; s.: ;,Dh~k f+i n g;h h h f.he.f5: 6 ri h ;&N '~$:Y - yh kpM W .cyy. M 4w fW.MC,g. C N g p@hk% g;$Q W h h ?&y '. .g. gsp.; % g g y.; %g 4 q7 g g yglg
.' -(, A. ,
w.
- n. c ~~w.... . . . .. ,, . .. ._ , . . ...
g, e 1 05/04/85 30 AQ-50 REV 3 h a 7
!*i%
l l l l
. .. 6,- .[ ' .,,, / q'/ ' [-- 4,1 ..; Y. , } ,. . ', -
i.'
.e
,. . l,,
.. .,%. ~* h .
.~.
.. . * ..b. - , p'* +g*
. '?
', , gy].[
.'s' *
~r 4,- .n; - }+n , e . <
- o. . . . , ,; < f),r-4.' ,p [] gi7,..,
. , - - .;s.s.-., . ry. 4. ,..,t- +
- .. '. . .9 ,
. .. %.t, .
.:> ,.~ . a-..,
c . 4. ','.
.= . .
s'. . y o
,t.,, ; , . . .
- . . , . .s p_ }- ,-..,d.v, .g -
r,~, .
-_.,-s,+3
'4 ,,m .
,. , g .g, y .R,. . .- , . . q_._.
.is; a
- g &. *,y ,',=, Nw J . ,3p ,,.
..v-q
.,, ., .e
- ..~':, ' ,
4 v.' ,i.: '.-
,, A*: ,. , ,a-.- < -;
i p ,v- *. "/ 9
,.",-M *,, & "., ' : .'t - ?. ~
s' '
. , v' , , , .
-..,.n.~.....,.A.....
- 3. , . :....,,,...l.w,
?
2
)
E
, ',p..< ,. f.;3 ..
,e._.,..'.l,- , . ' ' . , '..'p-. i. .. '; .i.,.'*..J'.-' _' .,s k ' .4-O *
+
p
.e ' . ,
m.-
...*. .*.W , N cy, g, s .... ,- . ,
.,.e .- -
+
. g. . p ,. , , s. ,= , . , , ~ -e..
,i ..) , ;, ,;.9.,. ? N e
-f',-
- e. -:
,. ,r- t', ( ,... 7. * ..
. ,, > 3 ,.
.s ; -
$. ... t
.w . . ., ~,
- p. , -.( : . _. p ,, ,
x N . +. J .. .. . g , r,
'.d. ,ff , : ' W.u$( '.. -M . f 7,h.1.,. ,..+) . .
, ,.'. ;, 5. M f . .. ' . #.
- 5y . -
=
__..?o
. E ; ., .'
" 9 - . .- . . ~
.. ' 5 .. *
-y -,.Q
" 4'
'i
' - $ ' , . g. 5
+g, ' 5. --
m g( i -
, ,i.~...
" 9 ja '..,-7 , . - . I e4 f.* 4. ,,
.,m..
.h^g
-n i
M. . -. p
.s
.l' 3 ~ , i , ,t , (-
.-v.' ' . ' 'z. ,
~. .; ,.'
..j*
. f s* 'A , +s,. .
- s ..
, ; ^'2-- * ?. t, ,. , 6 ";. ,
m ~4. . . w.. - .I.,. -
- . m 4,.. .
e, - ,
..f.,f -; t . . , #
. ~ :. me ~, - r ,., . .. . - , s ., , ,~ .-r . .-
- ., . y .
y
- f. ., ' . .l a., .
-f iv
' '_ I[ (E,h.. [i - ,.
- ., ;,e
. [ ., * . ,.." .tl1 c ;<
- o'
~ , ' , ,h
,y
,f, w.
- . .%. .. , . . , .hw. - .r..-,4 ,,
.-e
3 (.I <." .../ - .e_
;.;,. w ,F '.;e'-s: t. .+.-s. N* ,-
'. . *> ,,'e. *
'.' - s e .
+?g
'..1
4'
' ?-*.k- + %. C* -
.c' -.
. "4 et? #* L, . <p<,
- e: ; '.: ' - . 4 W a1 P' * * ., D ;y . ., ; -
q.,-i ,. .,
% . . :..'x . - - ; ep:
....,..,'.on 6 ,.. g
. - - *u .l..
.-.'9,.:--
s s -.
,.*. ,,- ~. y',. .,.
. ,,' ,. . . -k r
- , ' .s
' c, ,; , e
;,,f,--,9 s
. (.
6 ^ 4 '. . ,
- - " , ~ r .; . - gi t, i .. ,
-e. 'A
<- * -. ~--g .'
., - 9.4 . ' . ' ' g
#, e. e,_
/
- .. . ; T' 4
. . y. . - vm ,,, .- .A 4
.. y? - A,1,*
s
. .-1 '
.s
- i. - r
... k,3.
; f, .,,-u,.'a-:
l .u .a > *, ., .-
'p,4 s . #j. . .- ....
. >. ,. ,3
- g. . , ' - . . . -,;. ,.,;=,i ^g ,, , ,<7 +
,,. - , 3 ;. . . ,. .
5 l .y - s~ . ,' . . , . , . . . . .,s ,# ..,, .- s
<+T , ; .n. ..s
. ,. .. e
,y'- ..,,;-.,
- .*.- , -p , .
.r4yw.
4 p .,3; 4 . . . w,. 4 1 .)., .
i 3 .'; g . . .; * .,
+%. ,
.,.'.*i-
- w. % -
., ' b.
J' , [ C .i -# u . ._u,.
. . [';.I. .. .'.' . . %g . h, .,g;.
1 j a f_,
' ^ ' ' ' ' .* [.. , ; .
T ~ ,d-
^ .'-- 9.'].. ; 5 8
, p
, , , , , *.- y *$ * ..:.. ,.o
.r.
.._3. g. . . '* . ,. ,: , ' - . g ,-. ..,. , .
e5 t r 7s .: v * , -
.3., .j... x.,. , , - - . ..
~ -
. . =. p. .
g . . * .'y
'..; .; .%. 4
.6.' *L 4
-' .-*-, ' .~
..@. Y., . ; - ,'
6'., . .
- \. - . ,
"... '.~';.-lc,
'i ,-d W _$,i, '
gg' .,.;e. -*
,$a ; e 9
..y y .- . . '.., . .') in*.,s._. {. .f-.
.4 ' ,
f- - * -
+4 ,; ..,..,.i
,.t ?_
p- z ', ' y,. - m y 7 ,g ;. (- ,,
- s. -% .*x -
- g. = 1
.g
. =- n .- c. ...s,.-- . . . . . - . .
3 .. e
- 4. " 4-s, y.. . - , . .. ..
i, - -
.> > , .p. ;,.,.~ += _. . . .
e
.A
. '3: .'o - . .- .
s, , .-
+
. . .n y.:
A. ._,.,.
,y +g.. .. ,-e 4...' -
.v ..-. - ; a . . - - v. n .g'
,,,N,_..- 3.. n, i
',. , 'l " , 4 i,
..} ,%,
( -f. S..s; i 4-' _ :y., * "' ,3 .,. j. '-.
- . u
*z.r . .*. -.c , , - ' /. . -
,.,.ed.f g^
g 't. g * ^:. *
.y [.s= D- --' . , . .
- 97. , $ .* ,4... . " . .m, i. .
[k ' *: '. ., y td .Q..
~ : ' ' _.j'b.- .
#. c -s ;.. .-
- 2. 1t :p .
l, .' .' 4. ,
,- ( qs .: .
y . ., ,r, ,, e
, .a .r. .
r 9 e .. s -s.. ,. r. ;v.. ., - p; . . 3u, , -3.~-, 1 - 'o - - -e ~ . -
. e c: :- v. $ .: s u- ~: ...Q, . .- -
.., >k;. =.
'. ,&. . 3 - . w
. ,+ .
. , ; . .., ,: ct' e . -
*' ,g.. .//y.. .. ., .r( ...( <. . . .w. , ;A. . ,
4 ..'=y.L, ., . , .
.., . 3, : -- .-. e w y.' 1
-v'..,^ -
'6
,y , .i ~ . a.
s ,.
- D _g ,L _ :p , : .. L - ~ -: . . ,
.'u. s. x e
? ~
.u
,f tz
.{.,-
.; .",.. - ' - ._a ;," : ._-' .? 5-
'; y% ,. _ ,v,,. ",,,i i f .
,-.,c - . I ' , ,. 4. s ,,, -.t
__ y,
,y, ..,9 p. r t. . $I ..; . . . .o.,,Q %.y n
- :o y. ,
,v,
- w. . .
n,.
,; n. 9.p
. G. > sg y ._ ,? . _
c. v.
,- . , - ,. . .= . -, . . . ;.
- .. - w
-s -
-, ,;. z .
,- 4.... g, .,-4..,.+
gr. ,1
; ,P 4..: .
., , , .,3 y) ... .% -. . . . - " >
.? ' L . ~ a : ', ;
l : ' p' . .'
.. .a 'g .
.-.. ' h,' .
s w.,';. y. j Q g- _,n y
.- t
- . ,g
- g. ,
., . .:. ...,...a5.-. r
>v
..s. <3 .
k., s e a.
+ " - -
3 *s e g\ f. . r '. n - *s9 - ,* a yr-g 7, ' ' -Q_ .
,f ; -Q ~ . a:. , _
y _ . , , , . . . . . .,
.- -s,. a ..
', p.: e .. .
3
. . '.. , r%r
- c. -- , $ ' w . F p- -?g " ' , 3-
~f.
..y .* -
i f.* 9 . ,, 5 _
-$ a.
.eg . .<: . ~ ,
g._ ; g. * . ...~;
'.r.'-<.
4, . ' . ;:- .'.s mv.., _Q,, t - .-- . . ,<' ,s.,$. 4
- c. ; '. Ge y--
,' ~ . , ,;
8
?y V, *
. . _h : Q -
,}
n
.,,.t,.
.',. s O'. > - .
.s
- .' _ 't
&b . ,. ' ., ;
, ' }. t *(,.
\
. . % -:g,+ t- .., , . , ^., . ,"- ; -, ;
,x i 1 =.
q , 9 ; , j. . ..;.y l x - 7 < # . ,; , ,3
.t'..,._
Mte ,a4. ' ;~y n' ; e.- o . gr
.,. 4 . , '+ , ,3 ,.y y'. :grki? E
. s: i; ' wf *- b -L : , N . .; ':
i.- + ,'- , .u i.'s - . .),',-' ,' ..- , , - fg y '- .. .
. - -7 9 . . (' .g.,
... ..... - , , . ' ' y ~, 's : (
- 4
- a ;: -
; > f *' - :' .x - . . . . ' - 4, . .- - ,' -
- r ., ;- : * , -" -/ . ,;
__c .:. ;, ;. . , *
%,,. Y , ' < , - j .
- .~ .:
s
% - '.L..- *
.Aj ,- % ; .i?. '. . ;' ( .( -
'.,.'a,' . .- ,- ',
- 1- 4",7, ' ',N .-( e I d j? ,-a_ .
jy a '.- [..i,. fk [, ' # j',- . . *4 F [ N. . . ( , =. e, , ' ' .[ -
.-[ ,. ,> s *#- -
J", } -
..y..,..~?I . . . . c . ~
-r. *" en
.; , r ~.. ;
-.. y c- s. -
'. ~f ~ , -t -'
L ,;-*[ . 'n , ~ s . ;
,',,_a, ..q* .R
- p , } ,. - = . . . s [C ; .. ' s.
1
- f. l .
. ,. . l _. . ..,
q- a (, .T. . :g s 9- . . -s. . -
- e. .-
6-
..,a.,*4.,.*.. ,- "
./ , ~..
, r - . : . ,
..,- :-y;c c
. l -..."_...;y g
*i ' .
,. . . . . ++e g.s -
9
,.,..+ '
,,- .v: ' .- ' , :
- s. f, i .:+ , < 4 e y *N .' * . ,~ 1 , , . , , ,'j -A
'[' n y ' ~~_" g{ y y 'i g? -
Gjf,,..;.' :) c% YO
^ ,
~
- k. .... .., --
a ?; " * ~
'R, 6
'.- a .
g'g. . . . , , , - -'....,_.'A
- . . . :* 1 -
. . '-, ,-.,,.. -%.'j
.: e ,. ., i .
L
; ,fa .V,.-w. .; , - . - -
- " , :v ' s
..l.. ..'
.- s.
, g ww l ,
.\'
, ' :- . .; - ike '
- - ~
p -
,-4 4
- &.,, , *,;,. - ..",y
,,e
..~,,.,6
^a, A.
._. s , . .. ;~ - . -s::. :
t < p^ r . -. - - - ... .
'.,M...-, , %- *- .
.g i . .:
.j, . . ,.,-5
- p. - .L,
- -- " .y .- -N
- * ^ - ' ; '- ., ., - -
w
.t h4 .-A .^., y,
. ) ; .. >.h.,.".,... 5.k .5' l',. - -
' i i *^. . ., . ,.Y ' .' . ' , ... .
- o. k} .
2
.<_-- . < - .i.- ' .-.
'^ . j j' . . - <
. ," y s . r. k.= 3 L.. -... , . s 4 ,s m .,
W* e ' . __, g,,.~'- , . . .. ,.*, -N;_ '.. ,y, .* ?~j_^} , . i- -
- a. , , ..;
U _ '...m l, ?
. '.' y ;'+.c h ., % . a'. , ' "
g ; g. .b. * *-f.[; ' . ;.- , . - c9 .Q} p, . , ,s _', ;<,gn. t
, . ;. < :. , ,- k m_ -. ,
.,,:.. , ., ;. w,, ~ ~ g. . . ;.$q,-
- , 3 . , . .- ,m - -
.....:.. - ].
-J,.. .
p, ..y,j. s . .., m - -.+
,.',y. _.:....s f . 3,
. ,- ,- 1= ..
y 3
,j; 'V ' - -
f .. ,.
-a'
# s cm;..;
- s...'. . s+
- e. -:.,.. . a .. ,+.-. ..,-g- .+ -
~ . e r .. ;, . ,,;s .. ..y. =... ._. +q.,
. .. ~ -.= h_
N, , L .yep, r
- y. .
~.. > ,
v ' .:-
. - ~ . ;s ,i , . s .aq.,
[ ..
.. g'. W>._
,7... t; =~_L , 2.bs .
n.
, c. es , ,, , . . b . (N. _,. ,
. a ~ c.. <. ' . ,,.1 .
,.e. x? y ~
~s, ..,
~~,s.3 l n
. W, .pS~.: . .. . . : .l .u - . . , ..D m,
, _ a. _4 . . . . >. ..
- r ,.f' .r..
., 4 ., e, e. .
l
.., . 5- ,
...x . i , w 3
..'..t + - sa '
.a : . . -
n
- '.+-.: J," ... .,*. ' .,;d:
{;
- *> - . C, I,.,',,->5s y . 6*4,3, b,.".'A,, .,e: kw>-'.:-
,- g a,- . . , . .1... g "
',% < . e : M^
.t. . .
."" t 1~-
.'. + .:.
hn 4 ;- . - . " ' ' , . w c.-
; -- .;A< ~ , n. -, ,' +
gy ..A, ;% gl l , f ll f. . . . - - * ,; . ,; *:. . '. 4 p s* : , m ! . u'
.ny ) *. . ' . . . , ' _.
,.,} ' .y e, . ,, A } 4,,7 ,,4,,,' q . ,.,.>3,,,,"....7,-
T y . g$p K .- , f. .,., f . , fl , ]%N . . , - _g ,['(
. , . ~ . . . . .
; ) ,J
, .. .. t .,.
m _ e . ... ...1. . ... . . 05/04/85 31 AQ-50 REV 3 i 1 i
^ ' - - - - - - -
M-e ("A. ;1- . .:... 'g{" c;9
,:.".J..-
- (M i }'y ,9 +.
<, g(, nM, %,. ~ a
-i. . *i. -
' *47. ',J .
/ - .' - ' O Y g.Y') h 3,5.'.. ' NW ..
L.,.. ~45u
, . j ir O. ) : . . .
4 '- e f.',W 4. t.c */ ,. :
% (
'$.. ' t.
V.n9W < .'
. + . . ~. ..< .i.... , ' _~ , . g v* e. .V
.'c
.(
..w......e .:3 , . ..
. ..~. _._
.:y....,-.
a m.
~?-.:e . . . ..:
., . . ;. . , . ,. 9. .g.,
..p-
.,c .. . ., ., , _ . -< -. .... . . eK . ,1,. 3 .
- y. . . . ..;
- ......,p.-
.+. .;< s, . .~.
.a .. z
- p. ..
& , ., ., . _+ . ..-.
'il, 7 ; . . . , ..
4
- wA.
4.>.- .: *
~,g k t
- y. .\
g e y1 - ' y
" . .;; s . . . pb
, s .,_rwk . -. , .
=-- '
l,.: -;
' .-- ) {A . '-
, . .;, .: , 4 -- & ', y gs. .
r."., Y- - . ,.w- .f -(, ;*. - et s '*.. ..:-'t*.,. . , . '.:-
- v. . , r ;- . ,' /. '...v e
* - 1 ,'.,5. . .
.,I . e-y4.<
a g
. . ,,kg;+; ' .1 a ,
- ..=;- ae . . :. i :. '44.
. . -. , ,y', -. .; '. k ..c -*: s.-e' 3, *..
T. .; - . by .
. - ,- . %,e IV p - . .
-y .,
- 1. ,
2
.c: ;g ;
7 , . 7,,, ,. ;e, y,
.- .e
.. & 9 . ,
.. . * .t.*<,-.
L r..,. , - n+,.,< . .
.t -e t~
m .-
.'g 9
..u. < ,%.- }, .
)L .* --a -% .c .v./
. - p '; M , b. . '
.. ',s. ,. , s. .- . ; ,5.- .e O {p.i . - 9 .. ,p.,. . g, -
.. +, .. - ..
- s. .- . . _.- ;. .,.-, - ,s, f. :f..r- ., . .. . ,. ;t-,., . , , . . .y 4 .. .; q ;
,s- .
,4
.,+. . . , . t c. .
. - - i .- .
, - ., o
;u .
.r e c z. . . ', . ,.. .- - . .. .. , ,;... . e..y; %
t'
,v., . , ." ,g w .4-
- , . . .. .. . . ..,r...,.
,, c- .
..,._ ?,.,.,*-.. .~ .- ,- . .,,\,.,... . .
. . . . . . ~ . , . :. < . , . . ., = ,
, , - t ,. s.
.y
. y ,.i ;* .), , :- .'y__ h- g' . , ,
. ~ f .s.. . , t,..j ,, ,
j ..
.s v,....
~. ; . , .
.v .. + . < . , .. . .., - -+. . . . -.
^% _ ; : e , : : ('- ; ;. : .-:- ' u
.. M. .a.." , -
/ . ~ . w,fk.wa ..,. , g(- x, .:- ; - . .-
. . 2 , _.
y, , . . , 9c'._ *< ,v,,-
.s - b:-'
n.
. - ? . .. * *
,' 1,.. . . , . - , .' . -
, -}- . . -, , ~ ,
.W. g .
, . t .. s -
. t , f.
i
.-r : .-
*.-. .. * ,e t,
4 > (' 3 . - - p, g y <g,. %. x,,.;.
,t '- .- <.1
,. , t , , . .. .
' ~
Y m " j 't i '* M: p . 8 '.x 4:f -
, , .".e(
e.
. t g. . r . . s :4,,, 5, ue ,.i . . . .. . G -
._ r -> .. 3 - ,
- s. . t.
.3 ., :
q
=.y e . , . -.... ..
4 . s.
. : 4- . +.
- v gi 1 : +: :
. ',, ;.' .. t
.-f
/ . . q .. .
. ' ,hi*.. d. :it..p 1,-
c '.o T.4
' . . ' ,1 '- .j
. F. .
3 -A,, F-: s:. * ,
,,gh . , ': , ,
.w r,
-t
..,.,'p, .!:-) ..- ; ~. r . 6 -.<.
s' n-
.g.v'
. ' .p . ,.t....g., ..: ,,W.,,
. , y .j-,,. . c*> i 4.
J. ,
. , . .. . j , . ,
4' v* <s . ,. e ;, v' w y
..- , , . -.pe* '. v ., ;
, . -,g . .r.M
- ,;. . - ~ ,
s. s
't,
.(
e , ;
. . -. <* , . . , n -' "e_ -s e
p
* .'*: ' *T, .
- y - h (g ' .-[ # , .' ,p'.k ' , $
- - j ,. * *
, ,. * ' g5 "[., .hk'e.E E,
* = , , -, 'g ' , . , ' -ij,\.-,_ + ,. . ,
. ,. r-
- , , . ,. r ,a y * ., ~.4,r -A s y
.., .* ., ..,s +
. .. .n , i.Y. r .p. s . ..
, .~ . , - .c . ;
- e,. ,# y w.y , . - . . ,- + c; , .. 4 . . . . ;- r -.
e ., . 5 ,-*>
.(, ,,4 ' e 1pe . .;
t
. .= ' , ,g
. 3 .r . - ' .' -., c,. ,, 4 . , . ' , . -
cf . v. .
,. <. e ,. ' . , .,.. - . ,
j ~.r,.. ..',: ; h , ._ .y ..s, >l " ,? n.
; -; }. ;: -
* - ?-
e, p
,., q , .N -y . - . .. ,
, , - ,. R ; , j, e,m. w. .
ty. w..
-j . ,. ,s y.
- . a , _ .
% . , ___..m ,y ,
-y
.O
),' l
'y T
s .,. : , ~ . . . . . _ ,. - . ; .. , . 9 ,.6. E. ' . ,
.. , g .p i . 4 m .
t . .'}. _ . > ,. ,e .. 4. l .
.s 3, ( s
/
_ 4 e
.,,.j.s -r . .
*; ..,J'
. '$ i . .. ; ;*. g, e, - f fW J. _ :
.',[- *-; " .%ys
=
C
- h. ' . ,_ . ... .,
,, , s; .. .
..y (r... a, ' ' [s .
,q
* , ; '^. .
' .g ". ' [p;-
l ~: ., - 4 1 -_ ? _} .. > .7 ;Ty , ,a'",. '
.l j ,. .,. *i ;
';' ,7. [
-y
. i . - *1
- j.
- Ww ,..+ * - - '-. , , ., = ,., $.-
,g ..'
-r-
. p ..
- y y. g -, . , ,l, 1
y . . .- . - 4.r v, ,i , -:. g _ *,. _g 4
,e
. w. : .. ,* . _ , J - ,,!
h,s ;
.- - y
. , - - * + e y %t.a ;-. . . ". - , t M
.,i..',.'. - &
'- *. g r, *
-.s
-s a-.
~.e.-. g'4*Y --fm n
4
. a
',-. 6 f's .
?g , 3 . .. ; . y . ,
- 3
).p ;w a '
C .. p < .
.s; ..
e.-_,-
,- *: ~ . . ,
3s c' J , ,, .r"
+
,s
. . - . . - . ,;w.wg - z.
. ... . ,. s, -
- a. -"
.h, . - . - .
. . 9 _. y
. . ' ,.a ,,-g..:, s.g ;Qy,p% ,. . , 'e
. .a . .
yr. . . j 3 , s, 2....L. ,n n.- . . -- . ,* e'
,. .: / .y ) - r ?
- . ;q , m. ,. . -
.e
, ,ay'r, :
1 7 . ~,.....:. >p. l
,. :,.,. . . . - l u. .
y . ~ . - .. .-
.. s. g ..g
* .- . f..n , .1.<..
s',( ,.
- - - =
.,< ,,4- w. , 4, ,i i. - .
' .-- q .
, ; . .A, . ;, ..
?,. .
y
<a+..,- .'~ h; f- .-{;.
f , ., y
. ;.. . , . , . . e. ? . i,..,.-.'\ ,, , . - .
4 e
.<..~. ,. a(:*pp s g ,,
g-E. * . ,. ., , . ' ' ,
. ^#.
gy 4'
,,1*',,.
g-, i , ,
~
s 4 -[ 4.,, '. g, .:e. s', _.; ,,.c r.= .% 1- f 3,..
.y'.
1 _.- , . . - I
. . . . i l
','.'%.' r
. .h b '. r, ..e, - ., .- "W .? *
% ,. ,. , . .;7 h. . -jl.
8 - . . %, . g + w.,,.4
. , e- . - 1,T .
.., ,i. ss e
'2 t',-t .; ,w f...'-
e g
..?, i _ , yn r
.(
u $ ._ .,
'a' ':y
\
..(.,,< 4, -. c- W' . . } *', .g.. y
.n.
f..,."*.,..',..-'.,L f,. # 4-' [ '. r- 3,;;. < ' . '
- e. . ; g .
.,'. l
" . - . - - i . T. . -.L_' ,'e? .' , ip*
e r "If * .; .. ._'t e 3-
.' , '; . . ' . . , ,l. , j'-kf K W,, . En ', f.
.,* A
' l
, ., ,.1 .. . .
- u. .: .. ,
l t y ._ h3 .. q- y ' l . .* - ? -. '...* * ~ v-
..h, ? -
'. . d . ' )% .* ". ) . 1 *' .
. . L..- '
. . I ,. . , . ', h
" C[,[
'**' -' 6
,.+ g - .e.-
g , .,* f. - - - ,. . . .*- -
- .' , .g .- '- .- .. - ' + -. '- -
4
- ff p g , r .,-- ,,. i*
i q s v (, m.
.'_x.
. ,. g, .[- , _e _ . ,
I 1 ..n- ngs t ._, , ^4 .t f .f.'.s. _ .; : [ ' ; .
, y -~.
- y. ,e,..
..,,o c.ss ,:~ , :. ,v.. y ,f k -
q
.- .9,- !,,,.. s 4
. t# ,, }s * . .
i l , . , . . , , .
. +.. , -.
w .s
..' ',r ' *
- e
,. . . - .. . t l
l
.+ - : e
, i.-,.
r.. 1* ,. . g. .3 % 6
,>. . ~ . ,
- . ,* . ,vJ. '*..
l .
.4, f h . . , -J gS" 4 .- .. 5 , '.. - . *, . J{.,s - ' ., .t/ '1
.-'. ; ,^ ,' , ,, ,,- e -
,. .3
-K, i ; * < p, .g-r ..,,[* .* .q -* L ... >
_,;e .<. *
,g
, 4'
'. b 4 C - . .
....- .s ,
i l
,n. . ....,.,,i r , f,p: . p. j~.$.,j s. .- . - - '
y.
+ .- ..
3 ., .- 3
. ,(
4, e, ... .p,9 ,,y
- v. . .,- s: -
..3
,- -yy n... 99.y . q. ?.;
;: -a. - . .{a' gs. . .
...,_.3.. , . .,
-
- y ,- , . . . .
,,g 'y( ..r 4 ,o ,,3 c '. >
..g
- . .4 , - - '. M :', .-- .'(y
- ., . . . . .; . ,r , .
9 . . ,. my e .,, g. '.,%.'. d.e. . . " ' 94- ,..,e . -
.s c. .
- 4s -'."[.,.p P- . ,-c. . ( "j, . . . ' . * *
%F '.2 3
,,. C ' -
,4
- - x
+ j' . . -
x g$y .
+ .t
,.,. ,,-f. ' 'd I fp .p' b .V %- .. . 77 , i .N' . 4(,5 .
,- * . '... < . , -.'3 p '*c
s
, ?r . ' '. 1 .-
., r 7 s+ d v 2 ,. ' 3 4 ' ' . .,, .g, 3 , ~ 3 . _ ; -b.
r-. g ,s ~. i . - .- . + . - VM *-~r - '; 3 p, -5 -
;)., - ,
< -> . ' 7-- ,
- g. -j, ".. y/ . s ., /-
+ .t4
. ., . . , . , . 4. .
t-
.- s; < . . .
e
..,,- : , . . - ..2 s , . ,. .,
.)-.
?. x . , < , , ,g.;s .- yd,
.r. e- ,.
. v , . ~N ; ;4, --.. .< . . - ' : ' :. : y . . ,-.a :.
w
- ..c-
>- v-n,. . . - - .
,,,7..,i '
.-.s
- a i,r.r . ,, t%. . . :. .p.,. -., _. , . , . . . .
9 . ,
+
,g .
. _ . ,4 .L _, _ , .
e,., % ,4. J . a . , ars -p *g _ . + ... ., ., ,f 2 g* .,1s y,' .
,,V ,. . . -
. g'
,',v,, - . . -. . < , . . ., 6,
> - . , . .e. -
" . + ..;+ .
. . .- ^, :
.e. ,.-. r-a: . ,Q, .j,lv /. r. . '%,
g ., t 1 . , ..'y . 1 1, n
- s. '. ,.R 7 . ;.; ..m. ,, .
,7 , . ., ., ,<73
, g, ...14 j. _ . -.
g.g ,,s .. - 7g.. q. , ' s: ks. -; ., $ c. .,, , - ,., - - *-
.e^,
.A. 3 e... . ,. ..*- -.i1
- g. ,g$; s- . ,-
- . 2
..- . ,s - - .
,..s-' . . , >
u,r, , . - -* s , - .-
- . ya - . e. 2 p ..g 4 '. ,
' ,, ,' 5 + . - * -
s v -_.+t. - . . a . .. y 2s ,.' #. ~~ '
+.!. - E
'".k'-.e. -i.. ,.' s
. L -
s / : , ;.,, . .h ,r .* ,,%
;. .w .. .I. ,* .. . , 4 n: a. : x ,.. :. . . ,;k h.. ",.
.m.
r * ' y a . . . .:
. , ...g . , ~,'t.A .5 . , f't . >
).- . ..,e.m ., w ,.
.a ,- %, .,- y, A, i
3.-_. . .. ,4 . , ., , . -4 ,e c. yi z s 4' f. 3 i f
,.s ; j__WQlve } 's ? ; % ' . L.9 - W l* J ' h e,r_- y7 77
% ,.j l<* * -
L_ ' . , ' _ - , .1 _ h.,_
-r J-> g'( l
'- . . .. . ->. __: <r.. _,_i_; ~ ., y a l 05/04/85 32 AQ-50 REV 3 1
i
A
. . . ., . 4- ,'s . ', ..u, y .-
c: ;~ .!S ' - ' n,l. g..i*'.. * *? . % Y., k ,A e' Q + ., :-o ..? - i g ..
' G ,_ ,f , % : # %# ,- s-' ,F f. i, ,, s ';p! '**,.)f*-
._m,,y*- *+W-'j
** Je$ , +4 g.. *'.a
-'.,..l'^ g. ,.
+p
> , n -, . -; < -
_- l.: ,', (-- e.,e K, + , y,. 5
*n
.?
?.
e u
*9 r gro .- ,
* ,,+$ ,).=' . ,-
v , , ,o g=- j 4 p
, 9 g, . 4 -
, --~;'- ,
3 h 4-y = l
.~..A.,. '*j 3 b._ __ .E b. 'h . ' ,,
W * , # " .: b '
~,' . 3l.., , ,_.1.
'. . .. .. _m,' .-
-( ,. , .,'
e,8 . r.
~
-% - y
. '; '- - . P '% ! , ( .[ , y l 4 ';,..y 45 ' h]ef# .
'N J- '
; # '-i ' .'
i. [< .
- w.,; y ,
+* ,"* , . , 'i . ; [ ,, . V ,. T:,,-: ,( -
. ,$ j p - y '. %;Jd i
,s l
y'
.; * , ap .. .- .; $ ' * , . . > s -
- r. p . , , l a.
.,. ; . .a y ,n.~..,. < . ;.
s :- - ..
. ~? 2
;-- < -.4,. . u , . ,,. . ,,
,. __s
- m. ~ - 1
..nm~~c. ~ . - i -
% .:7,y. .4 , c .%g, , ~ W
. :. . p.
' ry e-
- 5 - ; 9,y *' !,., j...- [ M
.-jg 5' . ,- p. i
,.,7. ,e[ ... A s,.. #. f &. - , - ,- . .
i
- g. . -.-
,. , .k i ! . . ' ..
l
.,.s.. 8.. * . >.
-* f
, ,- ' - ". jy y*
i
?y...; [ .. l
,..,l g .
y,
,, .' y( ?. .g , z -,' - ,; _ ,,
..s<*'q -y:?R. ' , -_s. % , .::. ' ~ . 3 l. g. n ' . g.
j . y,a f. 4 ,y s.- _g, c ,, g. ,
.., r 3 ..
-m .. ,.
.. 7 .
. ., . . , , , . . ., . , ..-y. % < s ,. ,
_..- ,3
,. <a
,".p',.-- *.. - , o a.
,? ,s e -
-.4"
*Aei.'.',..
9.w .-s.. *. 5 A,5t - - . ', fs.',*
, $, 8,,
, > ' . i '.,g. . k- i
- - --" , +p%' ,;;4 g i+ . , - k.
s
. ,*%'. .,...,'*5
,, 4
.,,$.,,g 4
.g ..* %- . '
, ,, ~,C '- #
S ,, i,
,5-., 3
.k ., 4
- i
..','4'. y, r ', g m k..- ,-j',. A . , ., , ,+ ,,
p 4, ,
.4-*y.,-. .. .e- < - -u , . , -. - -
u.. * . , - - 3,.: r-
.. . ..s.. . -+. 4.,.-
?,..- .. , q# . ,4. , =.. a
.1 2. c. ,, . . ;*
3 .
. #..- -.*t
-s ,= - , , ,, ,. #
,=;.., .u
- n'. .-*
~ <*
- =
. *s .af - ,. -
\. , a,%+t,.,,,
g *
.f '
+ -
-s y
.-',y' '." ** . *q{_m.*}. , 'y'
, * =*
*5v *,> ng,j ?
.,'. -~o,
% l s. ,
,"' * = -
. . q - . k'4 .,
- We '
'I. .
- T- ** Y s ,"-
._.6.'-
...y l. . . . .. . . . . .
. . .c"4
,w+
.s. >
$ v,
n
.S,
,... '. ' < ~- .* - ,r l
,'!, [' c s.
~ ;" .
+
1., q.. - - , . ' '
' g,R.. yJ.-, - < ' - - .', -
a- =.
?g . ,
I l .I. a, f. , ' . .. . , .
+
g- .4
.. Js * =; . ,'
- ,; . * *gv^ ; -,,q. .-
e.
- .'l y , ,- +. 4
- t '
.-?.'-: .
a.,
'.'o
..,., e
... , fa . , . , - . . y , * '
'J ;.+k. . A.> '.a. . i -- Ir ;, j
, [,
.. + ',',..*
.'.e
-e 6; - ,
T,* j; .L s ,-".e., m + #
..'t , + ... b W..
. . s
,,.? .-,. ,
g - .. -- . s,
;' g i
- .' ', 'S. ."'t..'q.,- I ;lJ- , .=
- h. de'
. ..'j..
. .- . /. f,, t..n .,y *'
p 7. - : +
,. ; . F- --; M,~
u,p,.
* '( ,, , -." ' ,
f
-* h ; - 4 _ . ." 3 4, . .: . i ,' , ' . , ,- - ..
,~
I
,1, * =
~.. , < j' a. ..,.f _2 ;. _
m* -
. e <,-. ' .5, . . , ' .
. 2 ;! f,. . ~. a f . .
-_' ;. .,7 ., ,,'-w- . . w . --~ }}}