ML20211D852
Text
T f 'A%
f p
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' o
F; j,
EI
-WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 P
t
- s*
JAN 181982 MEMORANDUM FOR.:
D. G. Eiseniiut, Director, Division of' Licensing, NRR FROM:
R. L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL
SUBJECT:
-DIABLO CANYON PROGRAM PLAN Attached for your consideratidn is a first draft of a program plan for the Diablo Canyon seismic issuei The PG&E and staff activities, including the November 19,1981. order, have been arranged in a computerized action plan to allow a management tracking system to be.in effect. This plan has been put on the computer so that it can be update ^d periodically, We are working with M. Hungerbuhler to develop the capability to sort the tasks by any of the. input so that it may be used as a management tool.
. is a flow chart.of~ the entire program. Attachments 2a and 2b.
provide details on the tasks required, by the 11/19/81 Commission Order. is an explanation of the computer printout. Attachment 4 is a computer printout of the major tasks', while Attachment 5 details both major tasks and subtasks.
To fully develop the program plan, we recomind that the following steps be taken:
f 1) issue the attached memo to solicit comments on the program plan; J
- 2) ' incorporate comments received and finalize plan; l
3)' provide weekly updates to the plan (ccordinated by H. Schierling).
1 A
Robert L. Tedesco, Assista.nt Director
-for Licensing Division of Licensing, 2
l cc:
erri an M. Hungeroun.g er F. Miraglia B. Buckley g
mn w.s y.
-.. =....
BATE C. HAM 6
,4 UNITED STATES y
p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,,
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,+..../
JAN 2 81982 Docket Nos.: 50-275' MEMORANDUM FOR
. J. Miraglia, Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3, DL FROM:
H. E. Schierling, Project Manager, Licensing Branch No. 3, DL
SUBJECT:
REN0TIFICATION OF MEETING WITH PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY - DIABLO CANYON, UNIT 1, REGARDING PG&E SUBMITTAL DATED DECEMBER 4, 1981*
DATE &' TIME:
Wednesday, February. 3,1982 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
LOCATION:
Room P-ll8 Phillips Building Bethesda, Md.
PURPOSE:
To discuss issues based on staff review of PG&E submittal of December 4,1981 as listed in attachment and the concerns identified in a letter of M. Furbush, PG&E from D. Eisenhut, NRC dated January 28, 1982.
PARTICIPANTS:
NRC PG&E l
H. Denton G. Maneatis R. DeYoung D. Brand, et.al.
l 1
D. Eisenhut PG&E Consultants R. Vollmer E. Jordan R. Tedesco F. Miraglia H. Schierling l
Region V I
Hans E. Sc ief51n, Project Manager g licensing Branch No. 3 s
Division of Licensing l
cc: See next page.
- This meeting was originally noticed on January 8,1982 and scheduled y
for January. 19, 1982.
y
- ANo1E TE~
AAlE~x sms
3.-
Attachment,
Agenda Items Meeting with PG&E January 19, 1982 Seismic Reverification Program 4
1.
Scope and Technical Aspects of Plan II. Sample Criteria III. Benchmarking, of Results IV. QA Audit Methods Y. Size and Technical Qualifications of Review Team VI. Contractual and Financial Qualifications of Review Team
... ~.,
e-
-.e-
- 4..
~
I.
Scope and Technical Aspects of Plan 1.
Basis for selection of building (s) (nd structure (s) for seismic requalification 2.
Models for piping problems, including isometric
~
drawings based on' "as built" conditions 3.
Verification of input and seismic loads for piping and support analysis 4.
Verification of design specifications, design reports and design documents with respect to "as built" conditions 5.
Acceptance and rejection criteria for piping and supports 6.
Supports for large components (tanks, heat exchanger, pumps, vessels) 7.
Application of Reg. Guide 1.100 (Seismic Qual'ification of Electric Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants) to conduit and cable tray supports, and equipment 8.
Adequacy of seismic input for equipment qualification, interpretation of vertical ground motion, effects of torsion and building response characteristics 9.
Equipment procurement and qualification process (contractual obligations, modifications to account for Hosgri earthquake, commitments made during licensing activities) 10.
Procedure and basis for determining errors in seismic qualifications 11.
Independent development of dynamic model for -
auxiliary building 12.
Criteria for acyptance of fundamental mode frequency, mode shapes and selective floor 5
response spectra 13.
Seismic reverification of buried tank ano outdoor water storage tank 14.
Independent field verification prior to requalifica-tion; consideration of IE Bulletin 79-14 in independent field verification
- in....
2-
-d
- 15. Seismic service contract activities within program scope
- 16. Details 'for analysis of PG8E internal interfaces
- 17. Definitions for (a) significant deficiency'or error and (b) insignificant deficiency or error
- 18. Guidelines'for determining appropriateness of design methods considering change in " state of the art" technology II.
Sample Criteria 1.
Criteria for selection of sample calculation and for expansion of sample size if needed 2.
Statistical basis for sample size and proceaure in case of failure 3.
Equipment sample from safe shutdown and cooldown systems 4.
Adequacy of design process and quality assurance; reporting on basis of sample cases 5.
Criteria for sample checks and independent calculations 6.
Application of current evaluation tecnniques to independent sample calculations in analysis of structures and components.
III. Benchmarking of Results 1.
Benchmarking to NRC problems, of computer code for piping analysis IV. QA Audit Methods 1.
Reporting procedure for R. F. Reedy to R. L. Cloud and PG&E 2.
Scope of QA review (procurement documentation control; inst..uctions, procedures and drawings; document control; audi ting) 3.
Review of operational QA program (post 1978) with respect to implementation of corrective actions 4.
Consideration of applicable QA criteria (10 CFR 50 App. B) i
' ~ ~ - -
-s--e
.a, y
a n:.
,;g.
c j.
s.
m3 s
F
- - 3'-
in
.Y.
Size and Technical, Qualifications of Review Team 1.
Identification and qualifications. of'individualsi performing QA re' view.
2.
Expertise of individuals. in civil'-structural design and. analysis.
3.
Expertise. in seismic analysis of structures 9
4.
Assignment of individuals with appropriate..
expertise to specific tasks _- -
VI. Contractual ~ and Financial Qualifications of Review Team -
.l.
Previous involvement of companies 'and individuals in Diablo Ca iyon activities:now 'under their-independent review. scope.
2.
Previous involvement of companies or._ individuals in
~
Diablo Canyon Seismic design work i
3.
Previous employment b;y PG&E.of individuals now participating in independent review 4.
Ownership or control of PG8E stock by individuals participating in independent review i.
5.
Employment by PG&E of relatives or members of present household of individuals-participating in review, and position if appropriate.
4 e
4 l
4 0
'1 DIABLO CANYON Mr. Malcola H. Furbush Vice President - General' Counsel _.
Pacific Gas &- Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 cc:
Philip-A. Crane, Jr., Esq.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
~
California Public Utilities Commission-350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference,.Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Gordon A. Silver Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Harry M. Willis, Esq.
Seymour & Willis 601 California. Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, California S4108 Mr. Richard Hubbard MHB Technical Associates Suite-K 1723 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Mr. John Marrs, Managing Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 P
I I
1*:
3:
s in
~
Mr. Malcolm H, Furbush
--2;-
Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon 'NPS cc:
s.
c/o U.1 S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 369.
Avila Beach, California 93424 Ms. Raye Fl eming 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, California 93440 John R. Phillips, Esq.
Simon Klevansky, Esq.
Margaret Blodgett, Esq.
e Marion P. Johnston, Esq.
~
Joel Reynolds, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Interest 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90067 Paul C. Val entine, Esq.
321 Lytton Avenue Palo Al to, California 94302 Mr. Byron S. Georgiov Legal Affairs Secretary Governor's Office State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814-Herbert H. Brown,- Esq.
Hill, Christopher & Phillips, P.C.
1900 M Street, N.W.
'a'ashington, D.C.
20036 Mr. Richard E. Blankenburg, Co-Publisher Mr. Wayne A. Soroyan, News Reparter South County Publishing Canpany P. O. Box 460 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Mr. James 0. Schuyler Vice President - Nuclear Generation Depart. ment Pacific Gas & Electric Campany P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Bruce Norton, Esq.
Suite 202 3216 North 3rd Street Phoenix, Arizona 85012
.v.
..gs e,,..
M...
~
y.. ; ;..,* 3
~
.u.-
fic.e!'alcol:.i.'if.. Fur!:nh '
3 *..
r;,
Iir.1W. C. Gang 1off-
~'
^
Westinshouse Electi-ic Corpordtfon P.-O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230'
-r
- David F. Fleischaker,-f.sq.:
l 4:, -
P. O. Box.1178 '
Utlahoma City, Oklaho.a 73101:
i e
9-
,i...
ee see M, 0
S S
y 9
1 i
g e
3 :,-
t i
J t
4 l
-e 4
O J
f a
L
(
f i
s 9
E J
b
.~...+,s
~~
- - +
,..., _,. -,. -,. -. =. _ -.. -,.
.; -['
ol'N 1
'1 p
MEETING NOTICE DISTRIBUTION Docket Ftie 50-275~
f I&E Region I NRC PDR
> /
I&E Region II-
TERA-3 V
f I&E Region V s
LBf3 Files
)
f-
.e NRC Participants E. Case
' D. Eisenhut H. Denton R. Purple R.-DeYoung R. Tedesco D. Eisenhut B. J. Youngblood-RVollmer E. Jordan A. Scfsencer.
7 F. Miraglia R. Tedesco FMirag]ia E. Adensam J. Miller H. Sch1erling G. Lainas E.V Mattson T. Ippoltto T. Speis B. Russell M. Srinivasan 6 ~
D. Crutchfield O. Parr j
T. Novak F. Rosa S. Varga B. Sheron, Acting D. Valsallo L. G. Hulman R. Clark-R. Houston
^
J. Stolz W. Gammill R. Vollmer.
F. Congel I
J. Knight L. Rubenstein R. Bosnak W. Butler F. Schauer C. Berlinger R. Jackson l
G. Lear F. Schroeder K, Kniel Attorney, OELD D. Skovholt L
OIE (3)
G. Knighton l'
ACRS ( 6)
M. Ernst l
OSD (7 A. Thadant j
J. LeDoux, I&E W.' Minners B. Grimes, I&E.
S. Hanauer M. Wi.111'ams, DL H. Thompson W. Johnston D. Vassallo S. PawlicRi P. Collins V. Benaroya D. Ziemann Z. Rosztoczy V. Moore W. Haass Regional Administrator R..H. Encelken D. Muller bec: Applicant Service ust.
R. Ballard W. Regan Branch LB#3 A. Toalston Project Manager H. schierlin, Licensing Assistant J. Lee ~
1 i,
l
--g
.-g,
-muohen**
O' eomemum m eme.ess.. *-
mem ss y
=-
+-,,we e+en e ge-eew e,
p.*.
'4 w+e
Wy ~ :o :
k UNITED STATES
[
-g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
-s y
j wA::HINGTON, D. C. 20658 f
JAN 29 M
[
EMORANDUM FOR:
R. H. Vollmer, Director, Division of Engineering, NRR R. C. DeYoung, Director, Office of Inspection & Enforcement R. H. Engelken, Regional Administrator, RV -
FR(N:
D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON REVERIFICATION PROGRAM - PHASE I'
.s The purpose of this memorandum is to sumarize current status of the subject program.
As you are all aware, PG8E responded to the Comission Order CLI-81-30 with a December 4,1981 submittal which submitted their Phase I program. The 15-day comment period provided by the Comission's Order on this submittal has been extended to seven-days after the current ongoing Region V investigation is concluded and its report made publically available.
Despite the above, we have received some interim coments from the parties which'we have enclosed for your information (Enclosures 1 and 2). As you also know, we intended to meet with PG&E to discuss staff concerns on his proposed program. Since the meeting conflicted with the start of the full power hearings, it was cancelled and it is now anticipated such a meeting will occur during the week of February 8.
~
In addition to the concerns identified in the cancelled January 19, 1982 meeting agenda, the s.taff has recently comunicated to PG&E additional concerns on their program.
By letter of January 13,' 1982, PG8E submitted its Phase II program (copies of this submittal has been provided to you in nonnal distribution). While the staff has indicated to PG&E that the comment period for Phase II would start not earlier than that for Phase I, each of you is requested to review the Phase 11 program and provide your coments to H. Schierling (X28423) by c.o.b. February 5,1982.
rre G. E senhu, i ec or l
l Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
H. R. Denton E. G. Case
,p.
5N h
e O
1 s
.. \\..W -
'N S
h.'",
DAVID S. F1.E!SCHAKER -
P.o. box 1178 IN O[{ 9 e...
OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73101
.*C ;
do5i235 8444
,, i DEC 28 P3:22 c
e v.,
December g iy.gggy _n g.j C
- * = * *. = - 4 is i.kAn:H Nunzio Palladino, Chairman Thomas Roberts, Commissioner D" ~ "" Z ER g g 7 g g N John Ahearne,. Commissioner PROD. & U r!L FAC. n,.,-
Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner Peter A. Bradford, Commissioner Gentlemen:
On December 22, 1981, the Office of General Counsel '
hetified counsel that the ccmmission had extended the time for submitting comments to one week from the date of public release of the investigative report relating to distribution.
of the Cloud report.
By the time we received that word, however, the Joint Intervenors had submitted its cdements on Pacific
. Gas and Electric Company's selection o f-an independent auditor and design reverification program.
We expect to co==ent further when the investigative report is made public.
c'opy of the December Additionally, I have enclosed a 22nd submission which corrects the two typographical errors contained in the original.
Very truly yours,
. JOHN R. PEILLI?S, ESO.
'JOEL R. REYNOLDS, ESQ.
Center for Law in the Public Interest 10203 Santa Monica Soulevard l
Los Angeles, CA 90067 (213) 879-5588
/
UAVID S. FLEISCHAKER, ESQ.
Post Office Box 1178 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 (405) 235-8444 Njcdtevt/
' 36 Ey:
(
David S. Fl'eischaker Attorneys fbr Intervenors 3
Enclosure
.'/
cc:
Certificate of Service
//
s112300050$00 S
- c..
- j
~
\\
s
- . w 2-CAVID S. F~l E!SCHAKER s
P.o. Box 5178 CKr AMoMA CITY. oK 731o1 doSi235 8444
- /
h December 22, 1981 1
i Nunzio Palladino, Chairman Thomas Roberts, Corissioner John Ahearne, Commissioner Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner Peter A. Bradford, Commissioner Re:
In the Matter of Pacific j
Gas and Kectric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and
- 2) Docket Nos. 50-275.
~ O.L. and 50-323 O'.L.
Gentlemen:
This letter responds to the opportunity provided by the Commission to comment on Pacific Gas and Electric Company's selection of an independent auditor and design reverifi-cation program.
PG&E's proposal is' not acceptable.
The Joint Intervenors cannot support a design reverification program if we cannot have confidence in the results.
That confidence rests on a demonstration that the auditor is competent 'and independent.
What has been demonstrated to
-r date is that PG&E's proposed ~ auditor enjoys too-cozy a relationship with the utility and its subcontrators to be
" independent" in any meaningful sense of that word.
I Dr.
C1 pud previously worked for FG&E en the Diablo Canyon project.
In the recent past, he has enjoyed a close working relationship with parti'es who at one time were high executives in URS-Blume, a ' principle target of -the reverification prograr..
Finally, he has allowed PG&E to surreptitiously edit his reports prior to submitting them to the NRC and in a manner that cast the information in a light l
me.re favorable to the utility.
As for the substance of the proposed reverification i
program, Governor Brown has submitted a detailed criticue of the program.
We endorse Governor Brown's criticism.
'"\\
3.,;
. D-en %L s-
.s-,.,.
l
--~*
0
, e jg 5
e
%a+6+ep&8
""-"'"-#*"91'.'PM*
L
~..
u
+
.c.=....
3. --.....
??
l' 1,)
7 t
+
rr===xritzcz, Loe,rwmT, HILI CwnraTOPm"W & PwTrTM*Sr{
[g
~
zm A r ---- co A r.
1900. M SvenT, N. W.
Wasunwroar,I). C. 20006 m9 m (.e.)d
.ft.G r
3-c ====
"' ' ' ~,, ', ",,, ",, ", ",, ",
January 15, 1982
=
=== 3:
=.v.==.c seu - -a
=
,-====
- ~
(202) 452-7005 c
Chairman Nun =fo J. Palladino Co 4ssioner Victor Gilinsky Cor:=issioner Peter A. Bradford Co-m4ssioner John F. Ahearne Comissioner Thomas M. Roberts
~
U. 3. Nuclear Regulatory Cc==ission 1717 E Street,. N. W.
Washington, D.,C. 20555 Re:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, 4; '
Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L. and 50-323 0.L.
Dear Chairman Palladino and Members of the Cc==ission:
Pursuant to the Co-4 ssion's Order of November 19, 1981, which suspended Pacific Gas and Electric Cc=pany's ("PG&E") operating license, PG&E;on December 4, 1981, sub=itted a letter' setting forth PG&E's proposal for a design verification program.
By Order dated December 23, 1981, the Co dssion provided the Governor With the opportunity to co==ent on PG&E's proposal within one tieek following the public release of the Staff's repor*. on the NRC's investigation I
into the nature od PG&E's relationships with its verification con-sultants.
Our understanding is that the Staff will issue two reports and that the Governor will submit cc==ents following the second report.
However, there are sc=e matters that can be addressed now, ard these-are enclosed herewith in the form of Interim Cc==ents.
PG&E's letters of December 4, 1981, and January 13, 1982, to Harold Denton and PG&I's semi-monthly status reports disclose that PG&E's current consultants - who have not been approved by the NRC -
are proceeding rapidly toward completion of the reverification pro-gram plan which the Co-mission also has not approved.
The Governor submits that the Cc= mission should not permit such PG&E. activities prior to a Co= mission decision on the more fundamental issues of (1) the selection process for engaging nsw and truly independent auditors and -(2) the technically sound scope of the reverification program.
Accordingly, we reiterate that the Co==ission should grant the Governor's request of December 17, 1981, and pro =ptly order a halt to PG&E's current reverification progra=.
l 4
..x.. :..-.
... -... =.
2.
It is important to e.7hasize the Governor's concerns com=u-nicated to the Commissioners by letters dated October 30 and Dece=ber 17, 1981, that consultants selected unilaterally and ex=lusively by PG&E cannot perform an audit with the credibility demanded by the extraordinary circu= stances of this proceeding.
Indeed, it must be remembered that in this case, first, the plant was mistakenly sited; second, hardware intended to correct the first mistake w4s. mistakenly designed and installed; third, PG&E's unilateral selection of consultants to evaluate the is-plications of the design mistakes precluded the creation of a truly independent consulting relationship; and fourth, PG&E's teamwork with its consultants included undisclosed editorial privileges that came to light only after being exposed by the NRC.
In short, PG&E does not now have the credibility to be the architect of the reverification program intended to evaluate PG&E's own mistakes or to choose the consultants who will perfor=
that critical task.
Sincerely yours, s.-m / / Am, ',. - - -
A' s ~. Y
/
Herceru H. Brown Attorney for Governor
,Ed=und J. Brown Jr. of the State of California Enclosures cc:
service List j
l 1
l l
l l
i i
1 l
4
Intcri::1 Commenta l l s
GOVERNOR BROWN COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR SEISMIC SERVICE FMATED CONTRACTS PRIOR TO JUNE 1978 to the PG&E December 4, 1981 letter to Mr.
Harold R. Denton sets forth PG&E's proposed design verification program for seismic service related contracts in the time period prior to June 1978.
Our comments on Enclosure 2 are in two groups:
general co==ents applicable broadly to the PG&E proposal and specific co=ments related to particular items.
I.
General Comments A.
Specificity of PG&E Desien Verification Proposal It is extremely important that 't he PG&E proposal be precise and specific in terms of what it is intended to cover, how the work will be accomplished, and the bases for all decisions as to scope and methodology.
Such pre' cision and specificity is essential in order to avoid the potential for argument at a later date re.t;arding whether the reverification work has, i.n fact, been complete.
Many of our subsequent.ccm=ents are in an effort to point out areas of vagueness.
l As a starting point, Enclosure 2 should be redrafted with
. specific reference to the commission's Order Suspending License l
(" Order") of November 19, 1981 (CLI-81-30) and Attachmen: 1 o
i The PG&E proposal should:
thereto.
I 1.
Set forth precisely what the co= mission required in its November 19 Order; and l
l l
I l
~ ' '
l
'k
l f..
T.,
....y-.-.---...a
~ ---
-; - ~---
-u-v1
. ~
s i..r
. 5..-
e<'
2.
Specify.how PG&E intends to satisfy each-such pc cc= mission requirement, including a precise delineation of how each item in the,PG&E proposal relates to the comission's order and how the
='
~PG&E proposal fully meets each Commission re-quirement.Y:
As the PG&E p cposal now stands, it is ' impossible to determine how PG&E believes particular steps rel. ate to the Order and, accordingly, it is i=possible to cc=ent meaningfully on the scope or ccepleteness of the work which is p cposed.
B.
Recocnition of Desien and Construction Errors As of mid-November, 1981, PG&E'had already identified at least H separata design and construction errors.
See. Attach '
=ent A hereto.
These e__v s include the original, opposite hand er:cr discovered in September 1981 (E :c: 1 cn Attachment A),
as well as other er:crs of potential significance.
These other errors include -use of incorrect weights in seismic analyses (E :ce 3), wide spread misapplication of the Ecsgri spectra in the analyses of electrical conduit supports (Error 12)
/,
and differences between "as built" and "as designed" configuration of supports for electrical conduits (E :ce 14).
Notwithstanding the multiplicity of errors discovered thus far, the PG&E proposal appears to focus on the initial ' opposite s
- /
For exampie, we do not believe d at services performed bv Westinghouse and General Electric should be ex=1uded f:ch the scope of the reverification p:cgram.
See p. 4 of R. L. Cicud Report dated Dec. 21, 1981.
..j In the case of electrical conduits, nine of the twentv support cesigns checked did net use seistic ac=eleration values consistent with the Hosgri spectra.
See p. 68 of R. L. Cloud Repcrt, dated Nove=ber 12, 1981,
- 4*W*C
.,--r-
- u -... _.
~
a*-m a4m
~ D * ;..
W
..... m a
a..
-.- a ;.
~. -. -
'. n
..:..c...:a p ', [..,,
m,
- L.,,. f i'
ij d
fhand error and largely ignores all the other errors.
As'a result,.
t a reviewer has'no confidence that.the program is structured to address all the errors and possible causes.thereof.
The PG&E proposal should be altered to
~.
a.
Specify all errors discovered up to December 4,'1981; b.
'Describre each error 'in terms of likely' causes and areas of design and/or construction possibly implicated by the error; and-'
l~
c.
Specify how each error is addressed in the.PG&E proposal.
C.
Quality Assurance Program Elements The PG&E Quality Assurance ("QA") review appears to address 8
only 3 of the 18 QA criteria set forth in Appendix. B to ld C.F.R.
1.e.,' Criterion 3,designcontrol~,k:riterion5,instruc-Part 50:
tions, procedures, and drawings, and Criterion 6, document control.
Based on the QA program deficiencies identified to date, however, it already is apparent that PG&E did not establisti and execute a.
QA program in a timely fashion as required by Criteria 1 and 2.
i Likewis e, the repeated instances of " informality" in the exchange of procurement dccuments between PG&E and its contractors demon-strate a failure to implement the procurement document control measures set forth in Criterion 4.
Similarly, PG&E's failure to include all approved safety-related suppliers, including service contractors, on the approved suppliers list is contrary to the practices described in Criterion 7 concerning control of purchased material, equipment and services.
See PG&E's qualified suppliers list for nuclear safety-related products and services, dated
~
_ ~~, _.. :. :
~~u 2.::: =-_ _- y; ; u.:.~_ -
.a...._--
' ' ~ '^ -. :- ~~
.....:~ *r*~.:__
-_. T
~_T- - ~~ - -
'}j j
.....a.-.
... ---.--. =. -....
2.
2 4
' July 1978, which is included herein as Attachment B.
In addition, PG&E failed to initiate effective corrective action measures as required by criterion 16 in response to the numerous QA program deficiencies identified in PGGE's 1979 audit-of the John Blume QA program.
See Attachment C hereto.
The in~ formation provided in Attachment C also demonstrates that PG&E
~
had not implemented a comprehensive system of planned and periodic audits as required by Criterion 18.
Finally, PG&E was unable to provide sufficient records to furnish' evidence of activities affecting quality as set forth in Criterion 17.-
Based on the foregoing,.it'is clear that the PG&E proposal must be exp 2ded to address QA Criteria 1, 2, 4, 7, 16, 17~, and 18.
Unless this is done, the program will fail to acccmplish even on paper the cc=prehensive, integrated review called for in the Cc= mission's November 19 Orcer.
D.
Site QA Activities site QA activities, including CA procedures 'and requirements l
related to construction, ware covered by the same PG&E QA manual as the design QA which has been shown to have been inadequately l
implemented.
Thus, there is no evidence that site QA activities 1
may not have experienced the same basic breakdowns as design CA.
l In addition, PG&E did not develop detailed procedures required by 10 C.F.R. 50.'34 which demonstrated how the QA program was to be implemented until 1977, nearly 7 years after Appendix B was
~
.i......-..
.. i..
..; n.. x c.
lu,:
s.
g..
p 1-
~
+
. p-
' adopted Thus, there can be no confidence that the necessary
}
site QA activities occurred, or that they occurrred in a con-sistent and prescribed manner.
It is therefore imperative that the actual quality of installed safety-related structures,
'.I The means to do so would systems, and components be established.
- be through a physical reinspection of several safety-related electrical and mechanical systems.
Guidelines for such an independent physical reinspection and design verification program for Diablo Canyon were submitted to the NRC as an attachment.to Governor Brown's October 30 letter.
We urge that the PG&E program be altered to include such a site-related reinspection / design verification prdgram.
E.
Sampling Criteria An integral element of PG&T.'s design verification proposai is sampling of various structures,. systems and components to determine that they are.in fact designed in accordance with applicable requirements.
However, PG&E's proposed program does not adequately describe the bases for the criteria to be used for the selection of a suitable number and types of samples to
,be reviewed under the program.
For example, are the 20 conduit I
supports listed in Table 1 (p. 20) a 1 percent, a 0.1 percent, or a smaller sample?
What is the statistical or other basis for the si::e selected?
i.
l l
l l
e
_:- -~ - -
_-- -- q
. _ - -:.. w.... :.:.= :..:a.n: s..:...T.
- a. '=
- ....: ~.
i [u.,f_.; yL;u ; a -. ;..w
.-..-..n
.c;a
'4 j{
g,;. c g
l 4.
- f y.
PG&E has 'roposed to use' sampling extensively l
Iri short, p
I, without providing adequate guidelines or criteria for evaluation :
of that' sampling.
The proposal.,should be altered to:.
f 4
L 1.
Defins the confidence' level which the auditors desire..
~
5 to achieve for each sampling effort..The basis for; 1;.
1 E
selection of that confidence level must also be
-.. provided..
2.
Provide the statistical basis for the relative size of sample utilized in each case.
If a statistical basis is not being utilized, then the judgemental or other criteria should be specified precisely.
4 3.
For eacit sample selected, there must be a factual demonstration that it is representative of the total population of the item being sampled.
Define precisely the acceptance criteria for each. sampling-4.
effort, together with the factual bases-for those criteria.
This is essential if.any meaningful review is to take place.
Specify precisely the criteria to be used for expanding 5.
a sample based on the resulf.s of the initial sample.
Such criteria are only, generally addressed in the December 4 proposal.
F.
Resources and Schedule The resources to be devoted tc the PG&E verification program, At p.15 of the proposal, a 10-15 percent variation is the
- /
No acceptance criterion for building requalification.
basis is provided for this criter:.on wnien is ex.remely general at best.
.L_. _ - - --
_ 3 _- - - --
-~
m.
- -.,... =-.
... 1;
..;....:_-- : _ m_a
,S i
t
~7-
'and the proposed schedule.for the program are not described by
{
PG&E.
Obviously, the anticipated resource application and M me span for the program provide an indication of the depth and ex-tent of the proposed PG&E verification program.
~
II.
Seecific Cc ::nents'.
d The following is a page-by-page listing, with brief coz=nents, of specific deficiencies in PG&E's proposed design verification program: '
1.
(p.1, paragraph 2).
The conclusion that
'" seismic failures would no,t be. expected as a result of this misapplication of spectra" is a prior conclusicn which lacks support.
The sentence should be deleted.
2.
(p.1, paragraph 3).
The subsequent errors, at least 13 in nunber, as set forth in Attachment A, should also be specifically addressed by the pG&E verification program.
3.
(p.1, paragraph 3).
The plan, schedule, and scope of the " technical recovery program" should be defined.
4.
(p. 2, paragraph 2).
Significant deficiencies in the Blume QA program were identified by PG&E in June, 1979.
See Attachment C.
Consequently, a
the cutoff date of " June, 1978" should be revised to at least " June, 1979."
- .e.
..em.e.
ogs a
" ' ' + =
.w_.
.:-.:.... L : ::.:.. G.Q t T~ 3 N lv,.
~
~
f3Y.
3
+
t a.
-e..
- ~
g 5.
' (p. 5, paragraph 1).
The QA review should review the QA programs "and their implementation" against'
'10 Q.F.R. 50, Appendix B "and the specific documents listed in Section'3.1.1" of the PG&E proposal..
6; (p. 5, paragraph 2).
The documents,.'w'ith applicable revisions, to be collected and reviewed should be.
based on all applicable criteria of Appendix B',
rather than be limited' solely to " design control" or Criterion 3 7.
(p. 5, paragraph 3).
The SAR to be reviewed should.
include the commitments.in'both the PSAR and FSAR.
The review should also address the guidance set forth
)
in ths applicable revisions of the Regulatory Guides and ANSI Standards cited in Table 7-1, enclosed f
hereto as Attachment D.
ANSI Standards of particular importance include N45.2.11 concerning design,'
i N45.2.13 concerning procurement, N45.2.9 concerning CA records, and N45.2.12 concerning audits.
8.
(p. 5, paragraph 4).
In addition to' Criteria 3, 5, and 6 of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, the review should.enccmpass the QA program and implementation for all relevant criteria of Appendix B, including at least ~
Criteria 1, 2, 4, 7, 16, 17, and 18.
9.
(p. 6, paragraph 2-a).
The design basis should include that defined in 10 C.F.R. 50.2 and as specified in the licensing application, including the PSAR, the FSAR, i
and particuln:ly the Ec:7-i Seir. tic Evaluation Amend-i ments to the FSAR.
l t
.i. f T. ?.
~;.
...-.-.._.L
~
p.7. ;~-v..
..-9,. :.:n-n-..- y... ;~ -..: : -
= -
- 1 i
~.
y S.
' _ g.
6
. w
~
.s.
10.
'(p. 6, paragraph 2-a).
The design control review should also determine whether the maastfres for the selection and review for suitability of. application.
of materials, parts, equipment, _ and pro [ cesses that!
are ess'ential to the safety-related functions of:
t structures, systems, and components were adequate.
11.
(p. 6, paragraph 2-c).
Where a. test program is used.-
.to verify the adequacy of a specific design feature in i
lieu of other verifying or checking processes, it t
should include suitable qualificadons testing of a i
prototype unit under the most adverse design condi-tions.
Design control measures should'be applied to 4
items such as the following:
reactor physics, stress, 2
thermal, hydraulic, and accident analyses; compati-bility of materials; accessibility for inservice.
inspection, maintenance, and repair; and' delineation of acceptance criteria for inspections and tests.
q 12 (p. 7, paragraph 1-d).
Particular attention should i
The be given to the design control of field changes.
statement in the PG&E proposal should be reworded to I '
begin as follows:
" design changes, including field y
changes, were subject.
13.
(p. 7, paragraph 2).
The design inputs should include the design commitments in the Diablo Canyon PSAR and FSAR, as well as those stated in the relevant Westing-f house "WCAP" series of technical reports.
p t
i
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - ~ - -
~ ' _ ~.. ' -. ~.. ~ ~ ~
o
=-~ --
n-43m7
'e
~-
t,u,y a...,-
_a
.= : __
.o
..~.: 2
___:.4.: a-a w..-..=
, c..
+...._w p
^
,,,e 1
....: n.
_gn_;.
2 ey 4
x L,,
~~
- v 14.
(pp. 7-8, paragraphs 2, 3, ~1, and 2).
The' des'ign.
inputs, design process, change control, and inter face. control should be reviewed against the sp'ecific.
measures set forth in N45.2.11'.-
The documentation'and records (p. 8, paragraph 3).
15.
should be reviewed against the specific measures provided in N45.2.9.-
16.
(p. 8, paragraph 4).
Instructions,, procedures, or drawings should include appropriate quantitative or qualitative acceptance cri*.oria '(with the bases set forth) for determining that important QA activities-affecting the seismic design and construction have.
been satisfactorily accomplished.
17.
(p.-9, paragraph 1).
Proper distribution of documents should be based on the criteria that the documents are distributed to and used at.the location where the prescribed activity is performed.
These activities should include site activities, including construction..
I Further, changes to documents should be reviewed and' approved by the same organizations that performed the original review and approval unless PGGE or their contractors designate another responsible organization.
18.
(p.10, paragraph 2).
The' contracts, or whatever authorization document, which' exists between PG&E and the contractor, should be reviewed against the specific procurement control measures set forth in N45.2.13.
~
- N
- d44 h.
-.. ~,.
. ~..
.L
- ,. a.
- _..: %...: -i.
.i: "..
- l a
.-11 s.
19.
(p.10, paragraph 3).
The requirements of Appendix.
~
B should include all of the 18 criteria relevant to the* activities being conducted by the contractor.
The words " considers" and '" consonant" in the PG&E proposed program are vague and subject to numerous interpretations.
Therefore, the specific acceptance criteria (and bases for it) for the review of the contractor's program should be fu'rther defined by PG&E.
20.
(p. 11, paragraph 1).
The PG&E proposal concerning the review of calculations and analyses lacks speci-
~
ficity.
For example, the PG&E terms "at least some" and "may consist" do not provide a sufficient descrip-tion of exactly what PG&E proposes to acco=plish.
21.
(p.11, paragraph 3).
The specific items to be
~
addressed during the audits and design verification should include as a minimum the specific items _ set forth for design inputs (Section 3) and design verifi-cation (Section 6) of ANSI Standard N45.2.11.
l 22.
(p.12, paragraph 1).
The PG&E proposal fails to r
provide an adequate basis to support the assumption
(
that "the generic sample will cover the significant l'
design activities of service contractors."
The structures, systems, and components to be reviewed should explicitly cover activities of all the selected contractors.
t
..~'....-~._.~..~.)
~~*~~~~~****
a%,_
^
Q,, 7.,;. m. :. v
_m
=
.a.---._
' 3
~~
12 g
.c, v
g
'A j;
~
-23.
(p.12, paragraph 2).
It is not evident that a.
sampling approach is now appropriate based on the.
information of the numerous QA errors disclosed-to d' ate.
See Attachment A for examples of the ' errors.
An example where sampling no longer seems appropriate n-4
..L is the area of electrical conduit and raceway supports.
I The initia.L sampling showed approximately half of the electrical supports were designed based on a-misapplication of the Hosgri spectra.
Clearly, such a widespread error appears to transcend the sampling threshold and thus a 100 percent reverification is appropriate.
Similarly, the error in weights brings a
I all the building models into question.
In summa g,
the threshold of error incidences which would lead to 100 percent reverification should be explicitly defined in PG&E's proposed program and the bases for
)
~
selection of that threshold should be specified.
~
24 (p.12, paragraph 2).
The technical bases.demonstra-
~
ting the adequacy of sampling only "at least two items a
'if possible" should be provided by PG&E.
The proposed sample size appears to be unduly limited and.restric-i I
tive.
25.
(p.12, paragraph 3).
The PG&E proposal to determine the " degree of conservatism" should be eliminated.
r However, 2.5 a numerical expression of conservatism is I
calculated, the basis for such calculations should be defined by PG&E with respect to the applicable regula-l tory criteria.
Further, the technical basis for the
'~~~~=~;. *= ^:=.Z~ rtLW:iT.T.~~ M i w K
~'" -
. " ~ ~ ~ ~-
. _~ ::'".-~~ ** *_~~~~ ~*. ~.r.~L -
~~
- 's. Wee-..h-
1<:
g s
- a- __ s g.,7 j
t 13
,z
~ [..!
i
~
generic sample " judgment" should be explicitly set forth in PG&E's proposed-plan.
i I 26.
(p.,12, pa.ragraph 4).
The definition of "more
- significant equipment".should be provided by PGGE as this term is not defined in the NRC 1
regulations..
27.
(p.13, paragraphs 1 and 3).
Again,. the acceptance criteria describing the number of errors which would result in exceeding the sampling threshold, and thus require 100 percent reverification, should be stated in the proposed PG&E plan.
The proceding. comment applies throughout the. sampling discussion, and will not be repeated in the interest of brevity.
In
, addition, the "predeter-h ed acceptance criteria"
~
should be defined by PG&E.
28 (p.13, paragraph 4, and p.14, all paragraphs).
The " modification and interpretation" of r.he sampling procedure based.on " engineering judgment" should be more thoroughly described, particularly with regard i,
to multiple errors disclosed that may be unrelated.
29.
(p. 14, paragraph '1).
PG&E's' proposed sampling program by its cwn definition will not be sufficient to determine "any errors in the plant seismic qualifi-cntions" as stated in the subject paragraph.
4 4
.. - - = = -
vr7 v'-vr+u yr.-y,r-,-.,-g ry w
w-rw--t er v-
-=-yv
. wwww 9 y girC'w yymrw-yme
--y*
-y--%y-w,------y-3e-e--wr-ww mm wyy er.
wr-r--%--
e-*-*wy W w f m
.y y
->-e.--M-y9
[l [,,.iO: ; -._.;. a. :.: -.~~..:- -
--- -. =
~
+..
..w. - ;. ' ~. -9 :. w -. *..--.... =... u.
e..
Of
-> +
,j.-
9.
- )
- *. ' ' '.1 14-E M
~
30.
(p.14, paragraph 2).. The PG&E proposal sho,uld describe the criteria for determining the significance ofanerrorandfordeterminin'g'"ifan[ negative.
implications to safety exist."
H (p.15, parahaph 2),
The PGEE starting : Point should 31.
be revised to begin with the SAR commitments, and then followed by the resulting edgineering drawings.
32.
(p.15, paragraphs 4. and 5).
Because of.the wide-spread design QA breakdowns revealed to date, it is now appropriate to expand the PGEE program to include 4
reverification of all five buildings.
Further, the acceptance criteria for how a model provides a i
l "reasonabla representation of the building" should be explicitly stated by PG&E.
Reverification of all buildings also seems appropriate since most of the-j building models were based on, drawings in effect nearly i
10 years ago.
33 (p.16, paragraph 1).
The technical basis.for the acceptability of a 10 percent or 15 percent " variation of properties" should be stated.by PG&E.
The preceding comment also applies to other systems and equipment proposed by PG&E to be accepted on this basis.
In the interest of brevity in this critique, the comment will not be repeated.
34.
(p. 16, paragraph 3).
The selection of only 1 piping analysis in Westinghouse scope should be incre.ned.
Also, in selecting piping problems, consideration l
O46'O pDe h g eh
- h. 8 6 6 @*EuS*-+ ' * *
- m
,4 e e g a em.
.m-a e-we e
..we m
-m.-
p.
a
g
--m _ _
y,,
- y,~
.,,. 3. _ ;.
-15,
e
- 3. ;
should be given to selecting samples based on the.
most highly stressed pipes based on information e.
' ' presented by PG&E in t51e Hosgri' Seismic Evaluation.
35.
(p.17, paragraph 2).
The basis for selecting a' sample size of 200 feet of small bore piping for 're-analysis should be documented by PG&E.
In addition, '
the statistical significance, and the corresponding confidence level, should be stated based on the pro-posed sample. size.
'36.
(p.17, paragr'aphs 3 ' and 4).
See comments 34 and 35 related to the 15 percent variation acceptance cri -
teria and the sample size gf 10.
37 (p
17, paragraph 5).
For the reasons stated before,.
all conduit supports should be reverified.
38.
(p.17, paragraphs 1 and 2).
Any new model developed for dynamic analysis of conduit supparus should be
~
submitted to all parties in the Diablo Canyon proceed-ing for review.
The preceding comment also applies where a "different procedure" is utilized for the reanalysis.
3 9..
(p.18, paragraph 3).
The PG&E. basis for selecting the particular items to be reviewed and.the size of the sample of equipment-should be documented.
In any. case, the size of the sample appears to be inadequate, particularly the valve sample.
. =. : u..:....
._. y ;.-..
-..--n.
omon e a
y ',7*. :., % _..
- - --- - - - - m -
~-
-- -~ -~~~
x
-~ -'
p.,.,._
, u
~.
i
- .=.
16 -
t.
40.
(p. 21, paragraph 1)._
The scope and extent of the field verification, and the acceptance criteria,,
are not adequately documented by PGEE for the-proposed program.
Further,.the field verifi$ation~
l should apply to all structures, systems, and
~
components included in the,PG&E program rather.-
than be limited to only equipment.1 i-
~
4'1.
(p. 22, paragraph 1).
The review plans, checklists, schedules, and priorities for i=plementing the PG&E program should'ha documented in the program proposal.
The description of how the verification program will be implemented is particu'arly necessary for,this l
review since' a potential root cause of the QA break--
l down appears ' to be PG&E's lack of QA i=plementation documentation.
42.
The content of the first four bi-weekly PGEE/RLOloud.
j First, conclusions are presented reports is inadequate.
in the report, but the underlying data which purport i
to support the conclusion are not provided.
The data are clearly needed in order to enable an independent review.
Second, the bi-weekly reports have failed to l
croperly highlight the discover'I of potential errors.
For example, in report No. 3 at page 2 it is stated that "the dynamic analysis, however, has not begun pending PG&E's finali:ation of seismic input."
How 1
is an independent reviewer to k=cv that in fact Cloud 4
e
.1[
.. eum e.
m w
w-+-*
-w
=
q gp__m._
__w,,
w-,,,,,
_._m,,,,_,,m,-wm,,.m,,
n
,,,%,.9-9, 77
,_y__,
7_.,_y.,,.7m.g.
r,_,
c,9_.,
~ _,,,_,,_
.L
_ J..
t~
..;. -= :-
ee. -': -.'d p =g; i 4 x.
\\.
Y
'l_
1:
and PG&E had identified that the 1977 spectra rather than the naw spectra issued in 1979 had been erroneously utilized in the PG&E analysis of the auxiliary building; structures, systems and components.
~
43'
~
(p. 21, p'aragraph 3).
PG&I's final report should:
document all modifications to structures, systems and components which may be necess'ry due to errors dis-a covered during the verification program.. The adequacy of such modifications should he subject to the review of all. parties in the Diablo Canyon proceeding.
- ~
e l
l
._ _m 4
... ~ - -
~_....
e-..
+. -
.--m
- +.-
mus-e + 4 4h *
-ew N--
w een e h e
- me s e eeeese
i s
.4...
.. g
.*,g y
+
4 1.-...
i
~
O 8
e
- 4 9
G 4
5 9
9 4
8 g
S g
9 0
e 9
G S
e 9
ATTACCENT A p
4 e
6 e
e i
9 O
b 6
f e
i l
e 9
0 e
e 1
1 M
O OOM _
gg ggg
. m...e,e.e. e w e..m e...., e m
,,,,,w
- N
- epm em 88 8
- S em,em o ge ge...-
ee me sem.an ee.. - -. -
en.e. w e e
-og
.n.
u.e*
m,~.-
=w-%
e "g
e-*
p-
y,,,,
.J..
'...L. w c :.-
~-
' G f. '*, '
ATTACEMENT 3 t
QUALITY ASSURANCE ERRORS REVEALED
'SINCE SEPTEMBER 21, 1981 In the' six weeks since September 21, 19 81', 14 's eriotis errors in seismic design have been discovered at Diablo Canyon.
These eners have. primarily involved urablems in.the development, distribution, and.use of design data by. PG5E and its engineering services subcontractors.
These enors were discussed at
- Commission and Staff. meetings in Washington, D.C. and Bethesda,.
Maryland and at a series of meetings during October,1981, with California.
As a result of these PG4E in San Francisco,igations, it is' now clear that each erro'r discussions and invest involved a failure of-PG4E to implement proyectly a number of
-~~ ~
the 18 quality assurance criteria of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix 3.
The eners are described below:
a.
Error 1 - Outosite Hand Design On September 28,19 81, PG4E rep'orted that. a diagram enor had been found in a. portion.. of the seismic qualification of the Diablo Canyon Uni: 1 Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP-1).
This eno resulted in an incorrect app'lication of the seismic,
floor ressonse suectra. in, the crane. wall-contain=ent shell annulus.c'd the Unit L Containment Building.
The enor was that
~
the dia.gran used, to locats Vertical Seismic Fico: Response (V5FF.)
spectra for the Unit 1 containnent annulus was ' erroneous.
The diagran was amu 11 cable to Unit 2 but. was identidied as being ths.: o f Unit '1'.
Since' the-Units. are opposite hand, this resul:ed is an inconec crientation of VSFR suecna for Unit 1 ce==onent and system design.
The origia o f tha' ener was in -J:Le PG4I l
tran's=i.a.1, to a subcontractor (John' A. 31ume and Associa.:ss),
o f an unve:ified, handwritten, sketch of' the Unit I opposite hand geometry in place of the Uni.n L geomatir..l./ (Also see E
or 3).
b.
E red 2 - Document Dis ribution At the October 9 meeting between the NRC Staff and -
PG53, PG4E disclosed that the Seismic Category I electrical cable t:sys and conduit supports had been, qualified to design resuonse suectn which had been sucerseded.
The e nor was catsed by "PGSE's failure to distriburgthe latest revised spec n to the responsible engineer.
_1,/
LER 31 00 2./0.17.
0,.
O. e..n. h. a.. 1 7, t o. A.1.
2f Oc:che 9 me e ting trans crip t, pp. 10 5 -0 7.
l 1
SM -
O"NN N GmE
- - - - ~ ~
- = "
-^
~ ~ ~ ~
l.
s-
. - ~..
..=-
=---..,..--.-m-~~-
- r.,,;.
4
-2
~
.g - a.
s
,s.
-e 4
n
~
c.
Eno; 3 - Incorrect Weights a r' On Oct obe'; ~ 22, 19 81 inspectors from the NRC's Office of. Inspection and Enforcement determined that, in addition to the inroper application of the diagram as reported'to the t
NRC by PG4E cn September 28,1981, the. weights listed on. the i
diagram and used as. an imput to John A. Blume and. Associates for their development of response spectra, could not_ be n
ve'rified as. being accurate.
PG4E representatives recalcula'ted.
the weights using current as -buj '
the new weights to be different.8, t drawings, and determined
~ x N'
,f; t
PG43 concluded that the " substantial" weighr*va istions resulted from three principal causes:=
l (i)
The large bare piping ecuipment weights were not associated.with the correct frames-because -Jte Unit 1 piping orienation was used in conj unc-den with the Unit 2 frame orientation.
p i-(ii)
PG5E's en: rent calculations include additional contributors to the tot'al weight-e.g.,
conduit and cable trays and steel grating, which were considered to be insignificant in-the 1977 analysis.
(iii)
A m6:e detailed calculatien. c:!. large bore piping weights,. piping support weights and equipment weights.
i d
Error 4. - Containment Scray System Pice Suenorts on September 18, 1981, the NRC's
- esident inspec:c was no-dfied by/telechene of a. deficiency reportable under 10 CE.R
- 50. 5 5(e).1 Th's report from PGSE addressed deficiencies in,
the design of the contMngent spray systen pipe supports located wi-J112 containment.
. The following four deficiencies were identified:
(i)
An inconect thermai analysis was used
~
for hanger leads.
3/
PNO-V-8143 t--T M" v NRC Notifica5 ion of Event or Unusual Occur ence, Oc:o'oer 26, 1981.
ff Letter from Crane to - Engelken, October 19, 1981.
Ine::plicably, this er c; was not brough: :o the NRC's Consissioners ' attentic Septenber 21, 1981.
-. o. -. -
- - - _ 2..
U.:. = :
a- =. "
&., L
- f..
~.
. f.;
- = :
..~
.a g.;,
,4 a
}r,
's
~
(ii)
This analysis was performed with one' x/
?
snubber modeled as a. rigid member, s
c (iii)
Th's vahable spring settings for the pipe supports were imp;cuerly set, b ased -
T on a deadicad analysis which assumed,--
1 incorrectly, that the pipes contained?9
~
i3 water.
w y
~
(iv)
In designing a y pe anchor, the Icads-x from only one si e were used.
t' The rect cause of the preceding series of er:c;s has nat-s yet been explained by PG4E.
A Error 5'- W eng Scect a
'4 i
e.
~
j During the period of October 14 through 16, 19 81=,
representatives of the NRC staff and their censultants f ca 3rcekhaven National Laborstories me= wi-Jt the PG45 staff in-San Francisec.
During the meeting, piping problem (PG4E #6'-11) l was reviewed.
PG4E initially asserted that this problem did not require reevaluation as a result of the cpposite hand.
er:cr.
However, it was subsecuently deternised that the original PG4E calcula. tics used errenscus sueetzt. d.ntnt and hence required reanalysis with the app cpr'iate spec't:1. 5./
~
Tne cau.te of the er:cr has.nct yet been identified by PG4E.
i f.
Er-crs 6 to 10 - Additional Desim Errors An the Ncyember 3 meeting between PG4E and the NRC, PG4E disclosed that dtiring its internal review undertshan.
as a. result of the diagras frase crientation er:ce, it has identified five a.dditicnal design er:c s requiring plant-medifications from cause's not related to -de diagram er or.
t These design defi'ciencies are:.
j (i)
In a. single case, parallel piping lines which were qualified and. designed.f cm j
' a single analysis actually require two.
c analyses to preperly nedal both config-uratien,s.
~
i 4
1/
NEC Meeting Su==:rf fe Cetcher 14-16, 1931, Di:cuc:icn:
and ?;e'.inina.:y Audit of Seismic Analysis ic: Equipment and Ccmpenents in Diable Canycn, Unit 1 Containncat Annulus, p. 1
\\
3-s g---et-
-w-p---.sw-gw.----y.ee-v,.wsy---e.-%.-
-yw-y,w,grwm y m-i.y~rwg w-
-,w---4g---.r'e-w---y.---,--q m.
w we,
e.we*,
e-,yy-wo-imi--ru-+,e-o-y.-%W*-win-
y w
. y a. i ~.,... v
.., - w
- : " 7:
....a.s /
..-.n
~~
. c.
(ii)
In two cases, a s' mall bare piping-
~,
snubber required by analysis wa.s not -
1.
t designed.
I
-(iii)
Two 'supperts contained, gaps insufficient' der t.hef.nal movement.
if (iv)'.
A center suoport was not rigid in the restraised 'direetion.
i (v)
. A single. support on a, nonsafety-related pipe had not been qualified to Hosgri.
loads's.s required to prevent interactio with an adj acent: safety-related pipe, t g/
i.
The cause of = cur c: the five design er ors has not yet been determined by PG6E. ' The first error resulted from an error in judgmen.t.
The engineer icoked at the two parallei-i component cooling lines which run around the annulus, picked wha.c he thought was the worst case, analy:ed that worst case to determine pipe stressing and. support loadings, and based i
on that the supports were designed cor both lines.
PG4E subsequently determined.that the engineer had not used a conservative approach is -lat the engiseer did not pick the wors t case.
Rather, the line he did not use as s. model for the analysis had a lo'nger riser section, and so.it was necessary to perfors a separate model. for that other line. 2./
i 1
g.
Error 11 - Incorred: Vertical Scectra A discrepancy. in the spectra that were applied to the regenerative has.t exchanger was/ discovered during.Dr. Cloud's review.
The error was that the engineer responsible for l
qualifying this equipment used _two-thirds of the horizontal Hosgri acceleration filtered for the tau effect.
In fact he was supposed to have. used two-thirds of the unfiltered determined ty PG6E.1/ g cause. c:i the awr has not yet been.
spectra.
The underlyin 5
p/
November 3 meeting transcript, pp. 138-140.
Jf Novembe r 3 =ee ting trans crip t,
- p. 142.
8/
No ve=ber 3 ce e ting trans c-ip t, p. 201.
i L
-4 v
(
m
..,.a Y
"Y
- * - MW gr ams ewg pp
~
- -WN ~
1,,I ?.,..'. ).,. '
o t.
g c
Scecira j
h.
Error'12 - Misa elications of Hcs t-i Ence 12 invcived sisapplicatien of the Ecsgri suectra.
Electrical racew'ay and conduit supports are unistrut type supports, are 'all Class 1 eq'uipment, and are a11 laterally 1.;
b race d.. The PG4E safsnic analysis is based on an envelcuing y
. p;c cedure using s tatic analysis.
In this analysis, which contains a large 'nunber of ccafigurations, the largest weight J
+
~-
that a particular configuration is censidered to be 'able tc have applied to it is determined,. and the highest acceleration the support can e:cperience owing to its locatica in the building, is also determined.
Then, with these two inputs, the firs t -
mode frequency of the supports is cale 1sted, and the cc :ss-pending acceleration level is taken fren -the response suectra and the stress analysis is conducted.
The miispplicati'en er:crs were basically of two kinds.
First, the analyst selected the wrong number off the respense spectra curve; and second, in j
some cases the engineer apparently used cue cf -le Ecsgri suect:s. f cm a different loca icn in the building.
As befc; ed by PG5E..I_l he cause of the er:c;s has not yet been date 3
i.
Error II - F$:ther Scectra Misanelication l.,
For the heating and ventilating system components, Dr. Cicci reviewed the seisnic input. for the fans and da=pers.-
t l
He fcund ene instance whers the Ecsgri s ectra were nisauclied.
Once again, -de manner in which this anaiy. sis was conduc't'ed is very similar to that for the conduit supports (3 :cr 12).
The engineer ccnfirmed that the equip =ent was rigid, and then went to the :ero portion of the response spectra curve and.
selec cd-the w:eng value for -le accelera.tica level.
In this case, tGSE believes that the engineer used a spectra f ca a different eacation of the buildin.
The cause of i.he er:c:
has. not been determined by PG4E.10
+,
F.r:cr 14 - Differences seeween "As-Enilt" and Desien cend' scns Several. instances of A'"ference were discoverd between the
" a.' huilt" and "as-desig=ed" ccnfiguratics of supports.for electrica' conduits.
The discovery cf these discrepancies ence agF demenstra<
the necessity fer field verificatica of plant ccnditiens as ce= pared to the =cdels used fer seismic. analyses.
The cause of the er ::s ha' not yet been de-'"-'d ad by PG&I. 11,/
9/
Ne ve nb e r I ne e rin g trans crie., m. m.. 204-205.
0/ Novenber 3 neeting transcript, p. 206.
i*
11/ ?:cgress Repc=0 No. 1, Seismic Re-verificacien ?:cgra= by C. T.
Cicud, Nove=her 11, 19 81, ?p. 5 and 8.
s-e e
mm6SWB e e. **I.
-O
- "".'N-.-.
m.
__m 4
~*W*
- ==Wb-m 9-e
- 4. c q,,,
--vW
=
w-ge.---w-r wWe g
wt--=-v=vt=er7e-ve-
+ - - -
--t-m
--'m--r--9'm--
'--^r--PF
- e #
S.
- g,.
a*
.e++.===
. v -....
- e. e-
-e-..-me..
=+
.e
.. e
.t...
e, a
s
~
J.
. e O
~."
4 -
4 p
e
.t
+ :<;
- e.
s e
+
4 e
s 4
L s
S t -s 9
or k
t s
e t
i 9
9 9
+
4 j
- ',+ z.
e e
6 9
I S
1 9
5 S
e 9
e ATTACHMENT B O
G e
9 4
9 9
9
. 6 e
6 e
e 4
4 S
e e
9 e
a o
O l
e 4
o l
O m
O e
S I
t i
h:<
e I:
i i
i I
e--~.--.
m,
_.m.....
gr... e -
4@ M eto e
w e
.e
,,,,s.e
,e,,.
__h.
p
- N'
- N-+4.
pg 8 h h we..
p
- e.
-w
{
-Mpg %,
eg
~.-w-4, I?
m9-rf-r----,y_
- - - ~ - =
i A j QUALIFIED SUPPLIElls' LIST Folt NUCLEAll SAFETY-IIELATED PitODUCTS AND SERVICES II;visioq3.l issued By MATEltlALS DEPAltTMENT July 1978, j, i
DATE QUALIFIE IREQUALIFIED-SUPPL.IER FACTOltY AnnitESS PitODUCT/SEltVICES Q. A. SPEC.
DATE OF EXPillA' 5t 25 South Itice Avenue Valves and Valve Parts, 36" Max.
SP-A-2, Ifo9,f76 Anderson-Greenwoo.1 4
8/04/78se Ilouston, TX 77036
, Dia.
Safety Valves,36" Max. Dia.
l i
Aurora Pump 8ts0 Malcom Itoad Mechanical Seals and Pump Shaf ts
~ 3/17/76 lg 11urlingame, CA 8/17/788m I
nayox, Inc.
6323 San Pablo Avenue Covered, Flux-Cored, and nare SP-11-1 7/0y17 T5727#8 4
I Oakland, CA 9t 608 Electrodest and Filler Metals for Welding b.
i*
_/18/77-l
! ningham-Willamette 2800 NW Front Avenue Class I,2,3 Vessels, Valves &
SP-A-2 (for N 7
l.
Portland, Oft 97210 Pump Parts, Piping Systems, Class Class ! Items) 2/28/80 -
CS Core Supports. Class 2 & 3 SP-A-3 (for N l
Class 2 & 3 Items)
Tanks l
4 fop 76 T6/27 tis j
norg Warner, Nuct:ar 7500 Tyrone Avenue ASME N-Class I,2,3 Valves, Valve SP-A-2 (for N i
Valve Division Van Nuys, CA 91409 Parts, Vessels, Vessel Parts, and Class I & 2 Items)
Piping Subassemblies: 24 inch max.
SP-A-3 (for N 8
.I dia.,6 inch max, thick Class 3 Items)
I 4700 Coliseum Way Fabricate Metal Products 10/05/77 10/01/79 l nostrom-nergen,
Metal Products Oakland, CA 9's60l l i- ~l ll/0gsL6 BS&D Safety Systems 7455 E. 46th Street llupture Disc Assembly II/04/78 i
Tulsa, OK 74145 l
t i l j f '1 i
t i Circle Seal Corp.
Ill No. nrookhurst St.
' Vessels and Parts of 8" M'ax. I.D.
SP-A-2 (for 7/09/76 ii F Anaheim, CA 92803 and la Max. Thickness Code Class 1 8/0's/788 m Valves and Parts of 2500# Max.
and 2)
ANSI Pressure Class SP-A-3 (for Pipe and Piping Assemblics of Code Class 3)
[
4" Max. Nominal Pipe Size 1
3 9/16/76
'lL Coast industrial Supply 1819 5 Street Steel nolts, Studs and Nuts L
a 7)/16/78sa lierheley, CA 9fa710
~
Control Components, Inc.
2567 5. Main Street N Class I,2 & 3 Valves and 3/11/L8
(,}I.
3/01/00 Piping Assemblics
- ll Irvine, CA 9266fl
._....z.._,_..
..'.a j*g:
Revision 8 - July 1978
~
Pag 2 2
'DATE QUALIFIEf (REQUALIFIEO) a FACTORY ADDRESS PRODUCT / SERVICES O. A. SPEC. DATE OP EXPlRAT StJPPI.II:It
~/20/76 Crane Packing Co.
6400 Oakton Street Mechanical Seal Assemblies SP-n-0, Rev i 9
Morton Grove, IL 60053 Packing Materials and Gaskets 9/20/71's ',
l Dale Electronics P. O. Ilox 609 Resistors
_9/13/77
{; "
Columbus,14 Ell 68601 9/01/79 l
Dresser Industries, Ilighway 71 North ASME N Class I,2,3 Valves SP-A-2 (for N -
I Industrial Valve and Alexandria, LA 78301 Class i Items)
~ 4/07/77 5/20/80
-l-E SP-A-3 (for N Instrument Division Class 2 & 3 Items) 8 j!
Edwards Valves, Inc.
P. O. Ilox 689 Valves and Parts 5/23/78 3/01/80 i:
)
clo Rockwell International Corte Madera, CA 91s925 1lt lj 14 Inverness Drive East Electrical Relays Mfg.
SP-D-0, Rev 0 7/16/76 j;
l Electromax Instr. Inc.
b Englewood, CO 80llo 7/15/78s' l' Electroswitch 167 King Avenue Relays SP-E-0 9/13/77
}
l Weyrnouth, MASS 02188 9/13/79 l
.l 6/02/76
~
I
SP-A-3 Kansas City, KS 66110 60 Inch Max. Diameter T5727/78 C 1 i,
l 6 inch Max. Tlickness
,i e I Coraopolis,' PA ASME N Class I,2,3 Valves -
SP-A-2 (for N 4/07/77 1
,l l! Fisher Controls,
_/19/79 5
Class 1 & 2
! Continental Div.
& Valve Paris 1
Valves)
I i
k SP-A-3 (for N
' Class 3 Valves) f !
Gould, Inc.
6300 West iloward Street ASME N-Class 1,2,3 Valves, Valve SP-A-2 (for N-Class I/04/77_
.}
1
~ /01/79 3
Valve and Fittings Div.
Niles, IL 60648 Parts and Machined Fittings
-I & 2)
SP-A-3 (for N-Class 3) i
' 7/21/76 llarriston Ilott and 2781 Wilkins Avenue Steel Nuts and lioits
"*/21/7888
- lfut Company llattimore, MD 21223 k
i.
1, n
i il
.m
Itevision 8 - July 1978
~
~. ]c
' - i P gn 3
' DATE QUALIF'IE?
,5 (REQUALIFIEn l! i FACTORY ADDRESS PROD 8 JCT / SERVICES Q. A. SPEC. DATE OF EXPtRA*
SUPPLIER ASME NP & Class I&2 Pipe llangers SP-A-2 3/16/76 i
761T7T= = ;
ll ITT Grinnell
'Varren, Oil
& MC Component Supports Pipe llanger Div.
ASME NP & Class 3 Pipe llangers & SP-A-3 MC Component Supports.
9i 20l4 Farallon Drive Steel Bolts, Studs, and Nuts
~9 sq 78ae ITT liarper San Leandro, CA 94577 j
10650 South Alameda Street
- Special Steel Fabrication, Aluminum E/Ol/19 10/01577-9 Earle M. Jo'rgensen Los Angeles, CA 90059 Forgings l
SP-D-0 8/18/75_
l f f 'i Metrix Mig. Company Redwood City, CA Mig. Macidned Fasteners 3/31/79 SP-A-3 JI7/78
,l j:
i Pumps and Parts ASME N-Class 3 8/01/79 Nash Engineering Co.
310 Wilson Averme Norwalk, CT 06156 Perform Safety-Related Inspections SNT-TC-1 A8
.11/cs/76 l
T1/08/78 Nuclear Services Corp.
1700 Dell Avenue Campbell, CA 95003 3/15/76 j
I-Mechanical Shock Arrestors NPT SP-A-2 l
8/04/78mm,,
t Pacific Scientific Co.
Anaheim, CA Class 1, 2 & 3 & MC Linear 3
Suppats N Stamp t
j
_7/15/76
REGO Brand Stamlard Commercial a
,,s 7/14/78se-ll ' I ItEGO Division of 4201 West Peterson Avenue i Golconda Corporation Chicago, IL 60646 Grade Valves
_ /10/77_-
I 6
SP-D-0 Wire and Cable Rockbestos Company 285 Nicoll Street 2/01/79 l jl l !l l Cerro Wire & Cable Div.
l New llaven, CT 5/23/78 f
Temperature & Pressure Flow histr.
3/01/80 i
r 12001 W. 78th Street
{ ;, I ' Rosemount, Inc.
Eden Prairie, MN 55343 4/17/78
')
j Terry Sa'eam Turbine Lamberton Itoad Steam Turbines and Parts 3/01/80 4 ;
g.
Windsor, CT 06095-7/21/76- - i a
Steel Nuts and Bolts 7/21/7886 l
-. Texas nott Company P. O. nox 1211 llouston, TX 77001
,(
'l i
o
., ~ _. ~.,
.~
Revision 8 - July 1978
...I
~
i Page 4 DATE QUA t
(REQUALIFIE1 SUPPt.IER FACTORY ADDRESS PRODUCT / SERVICES Q. A. SPEC. DATE OF EXPIR/ !.
Union Pump Company Battle Creek, Mi Pumps and Parts Class 1 & 2 -
SP-A-2 11/25/73 Pumps and Paris Class 3
- SP-A-3
. 10/27/78
\\
Visalia Electric Motor Shop 30517 Ivy Road Class i Electric Motor Repairs and 4/19/78 Goshen, CA 93227 ModilIcations 4/01/80 Volumetrics 1025 Arbor Vitae Street Calibration Instruments SS-B-2 8/24/76 Inglewood, CA 90301
~8/27/78'f Westinghouse Electric Corp P. O. Box 355 Nuclear fuel assemblies and assoc. ~
SP-A-0 '
1/17/7s
.f
' Nuclear Fuel Div.
Pitisburgh, PA 15230 reactor core components (design)
'1/01/79 Zetec, Incorporated P. O. Box 140
. Safety Related Inspections Under SNT-TC-l As II/08/76 Issaquah, WA 98027 Supervision of D.E.R.
M/08/76 8
jli I
~
I i
)
l 1
...~
t
'i
- Purchase Order or Contracts placed with these Suppliers require special instructions. See Supplier Qualification File for required informat "This Supplier's qualification has expired or is due to expire during the next, quarter.
p l
f,
.e-
~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~=*-
- *eW o.,
- O O
~" *'
d~*~.
- ~~
' - * * *.*.- g
, ' * ~~' ' ' * ' * *- * *
-......t.n..
e e
r
- i.. s 4
l e
I e'
e o
\\
c d
1 I
i 9
i 1
6 e
G W
6 eee4em u..m4
- ,w***
-'"8 eNh g
ATTACGENT C 9
a e
O
\\
6 e
O O
e 1
e O
O l
l 9
9 I
i I
~
- _ -.~ ~ " T;.
_ -. w.
i
=
m -.. -..=,, ' m g :. C C C g./1".
.." h...
.~
- N..
e v,.:.:. s,,
b ;:
- s 4
w
---w
/-
g
. E* C93 77 3f.At.s STME::
- 1AM /RAN c!3:2. CA4.1# ftN f A 94 t CS, * (4 t !) 711 4211. Sv* g tCJ*$.43
=.
i C'
4,
..e c.,
.t 5 7 c.
yp
== a X:. 1. 7. Zu=ga w
.Quali:y Assuranca P'-s ga:
7 U?.5 /J '..
1.
31=a & Assccia:ss, Ingissars -
12C Jassia S:::::
N Sr: 7:'- 'sc=, CA 94LQ3 C
04 : Icc:
r.e
. _..; 2 gu;4 g y.
.e :
6..,..
a.44 a
. _... a..'..d c.'
~
O A;;il 13 h: ugh 227 24, 1979.
Tha ;E:pesa of :his indi: vs.s== cc fd:=
O chs: U?.S/31u a is i=pl -a--' g :::::::~ and Quali:7 Assur:::a : quire-Teu tra awara cf 1..a ;;:ble=s and defician. des shich wa caccu.:::ed
=as:s.
- as call as the length cf -d=a asi z=-heurs needed : ve:1f7 es: zi:
- z.spe::s cf ycur qa-:7 pr g :=.
.m..
s_ e.u. gg.s.s..,.. gga u..
g
.u.
... c.t n..a..-... g g.,... s. g n.>.4..
..r 44. 14..
, e s.o ygg..e4 s..,
4
.,t, r....,.
e.s.,.,
.- '.a
. sc vad
.w u
.. 4 e.5..,,.....
.y.3 7.. yet g
u.,.....t.
4 t
Sc a cd :ha d=ficiencias 1: ycur ; :g;z: Ca7 san: -d-a
, bu: 1: is ?C".I's aspensibill:7 :: ve:Af7 cpc:: 1:
cf ycc: ;;:g:.= = cur ss:isf:::12.
l Tc: this russen, I rac.ucsced tha. assis:
--a cd severs.'. angi:sers i:
- sviantsg v::1eus :ac'--'-* ' aspe s f yes: ;;=.ta=:s La c:da: :: verify tha *-
- ..y and qus11..7 cf cha uc:'r..
I: the fu:ura, ?C&I e'
ec:s you: Quali.-r issurz::: ?
g==.= he f- ' ' y fu==:i:- - ' a d all yeu: ;;=jac: perse =e1 f>-d*: wi:h :ha appli:=h12 qa ' '.7 raqu1:a=es:s ed
'a' - ;; jcc:s.
A fc110tr-up audi: vd ' ' he cardue:ed la:s: c"d
- 7e2: :: verify tha ::sclucics of - cu:s:: d*~1
- -.at..g1.
.e <... -,, 7,
/
h/hfffx/
- a. t..
22:-,-
v- - ( n.. :.. ).
e e
ee
.e..
.=*u=**"**
n
=
weipm-e
- 6h*W=*
.,,g,g.
.*e.ise iss p -"
dh'*'*
1.
v c
J--bri.hq"*:7 iis==es Deps:.:.=: :::sd = s 11.3, S 2 ::
t 7,
" 1..J '_ : ?. ape:.s:
7c
.C = :s:.:,
J D's=itu:1:.", zad'_: :sp=:.s ara' ::.
c.
ce su'= d::ad. := ta 01:2=:=, Q" ' ' :;7 J.ss
- a, vi ' d - 2 v'aeks (1C :::11
., e.
da.7:) c' &n cc-
'21'=. ci ta a"^ :.
%l
._q E che aheve se'ad '= 's
- est. emelzi. balee:
7
.N C
g
(
C 1 ^ : ?.1 : u -. Sc.:
/
9 O
f7-
's. /
/
t es 12.i.L::
~.
I b
O s/ 7.ht) d A f,
7g
~
A vae -.
., $ 3 D*'9f*
)
hh
-?
/
k'
- 99
's iuk uA
/
/ /
.Z % W m. b c.%6h. &#a hYdu $ Y~dde::. Ow.M4.$hr fLA
' '. /5W/
/
/
/
e f
'/.
/
d, a.
-y f
- m..aA4
. p r==-a o
' ~. *. - ~
e
.w
___m_
m m
.n a.
w,
{'..s.' ! > ;,y ; *
-"~
.. :.. u.;
--.-.---;----=-"~ - * - '*.
l
, f " ' "_ ~
quJJ.:"Y A2222MCZ 11.1 x s.0:
,c of UK5/31a=a & Assec14:::, Engiacers Aud1:
ga 3:1-.*nez,t,1ssar a,
c Aud1: IM. 91605 C
!.'7 Ju=a 29, 1979 3.
<]
,3 t
T' H2. 3. L 5'd>^~"?C3.U:
i N
a A: schad is
- =per: of a:i sud1: ed LT.5/11== perfor- > :=
}; -~
_, A;;11 23 ch:: ugh t' 7 24, 1979.
CIS/E1== p :vidas 6:sul-1:q o
a a: ri-a = f=
sals=1: q" = ' ' 'd - -d -- cf s.:::::::1 (--d =a# *-'- ')
supper:s a: D12hl: C :yc= ?: war ?'-
'= uc:k 4-
'-d.=
c dasig: ::vtavs, a=21 sas cf supper. sys= =-*, a=d cau dasig. 5::
7
\\
calliL:.1==s.
C Tha zud1:
s pT:f==ad :: va.-1f7 ch : this c==s-*
cas 'adaqu===17 i=gle=es:1:g 1:s q *:7 as=ur---' ;;:g;c c= :ha ?CandE p =jae:x ~
f=: chich L: 11 ::spensibia.
h audit::s fou=d -h : in.12 i:s 2 ::s URS/11=a was ::: i=:1s=a : '
1:g c==:te:- *' a=d Quali 7 is:::::: H :"',,', raquirs=s::s. -
Ou: ::
.w... S,.
,44..
.., c.e....,.; r.
4 4 ; 4..,....a a.. c.:. 3...; ct.
+ha.
U25/11"-** had. ::: has: :sspensiva :: its c=-d =as: f== a q"* ' ' :y-
- g -.
- >d*:
sc 1 = : s.:: ken := 1:f = 7:=jec: Z:Q1 a:1:g cd :he findiscs, a=4 :
schad"'= :::: active 4 10:s.-
AL:1: :ha *-' -d ' '
'd
gs, ?Cr:d5 =~ -=ars va:a 1skai := assis:
.ha audi: :=-
va:1_^7 :ha q -*' * :7 ad GR5/11=a's desig:,2c:k h g=~*:2.L.
- ta dasig:
- 'c Luali sp=ez: 1 := he sa:1sts: ::7
'ucc ua
- =gra=z which
- cad ::: has: vartiiad have r*-'* bea:
~
vs titad :
,.17 ut:h :2c ' * :i==s.
h addi:1=r. :
cha dafd -# ---* as ids =:131ad in the URS/Z1unt QA P;:5:==, deft:12: eda
- 1= PC4:dE's 1 :::f2:1:3 :::171:1 : ut h===-
std ' :s ua_a al.se d '=--d 'iad.
All fd-d ' v,.s have ban = dec=es:ad c= H::::rde-ca K.aperts C'OCO-79--2H04., -205 cud -006.
C sc:1ve I ac:1:ns u* ha 'eerified b7 :he Q"-' ':y Assu =ca Ocpc.
I,, y / t w
1
/$
.g.
g.o. m...,3
.q y d.J/t1.2 :'-- (5:92):::
)i es:
CC 4 32 - Eu;;114:
A:::chuas:
'*" -== G *ff :~.~. 2 m"
....-.---..2y-.t 3
~,.
.-. v.:.-
~. ",g6*m&&.
W
.,, _ ' ~
,.p.m.p h,
_wy,p 6*"
u.....
. _- - - - --. ~ - - - - >
DIS %,r, m...mJ C~. n.v. s m_ ~. _,v 'L,.
w.
e DP 227.0 C.iECM.GD E.12CT UT 3AT - SU??? - e
.N O
JS 14 -.= e t
ts*]
=
Sf t**r4=_q 4
h M
I 3"d&f.F.
m_4..
x 6
N G32a:ai
.e
,, 4.
.m s
S*$E='NI ew g7.:
w T".24_
O
?
O
..e m
21C.-
, Jr.
wT&TOQ~
UPT =._t.s..
~
~ u a.::.:c c
DTC.nLLT r,y, _ t _.7,.v.
a_
TCi1:ks eru,,...
m.
aJ t..J
.7 TtatJ..
cv,-<27 s
=asa7:c13s
.~;~:. " -
- 35ad14:
JOSchuyl,4:
e
- g.w._,.s., t...: (
_s
.....)
"'d4Sk3
~~
4 " rec. 4
..-g..
m, ao.e ese
-.- - -- ~~~
- - - -. -..... -. - -, o
._..,.,..,......__t r..< ~;
n.
e
, -. = =. - *
- -+N*-e==-
.w.
m.,
--**=-= - me-
^ ~~
- - ~ ~
- t o
a-w
.; a.
p g q _,.
- 4.. <
.a g
.c C
?k.
ic CAS MD -~ %m 'C.'.'.. cit QUALI ! 155U?.MC1 DE?*""C C
- a..
Ti:la: 7 Audi: ef Su== liar's cuali:r Assurs=:s ? :r zu
,M
-+ y
- ' Auditad C:ss=1:a:1= /
ised ' d y:
C15/Jel.
A. 31==s & Assceiz:ss. I:21:aars
~
y
~'
L. 3a
..a=, C.aad Audi:==):
Aud1:::s:
3 Id
- c.,..
.,=.J J a N
g g4. 3 :.. 4. ad.*
i-. d_.'
P' u_27 %.
t e.7 a.
_W
- m.s
=
+
c L.0 sesca d"9 U?.S/11=a '..as ':aar. ;; vidi=g s=;isaari=g c==sc1 i=g sa ricas," '- '
>d r
dasi;=, ravisr, a=d a=21 sd.s, f:: sais=1:
-=t*'1:z.1=: e# s::====t1 7
sup;c::s.
T' d
- a=di: =as ;a.-de: _si := varify i=p1=---:2.1:= *cd all.
aspects c' U?.5/11c=a's. qa* * * :7 assu:5-a ;;:g:s===f':ai ::
-'-=d-
- ssas vc
- 'c t-Df.A':1: Cz:fer. ?cva: 3's~:.
?.. O C ::1:sdea C: "zr 24, 1 r79, a pos:-2 J' : c: dar;- a was hald a 'U?.5/31=a's 'iscilig Twalva audi: "d-d' - s wars ;;ssan=ad a=i disc =aaad.
'! a i=1lering pe;J wars i=.a::a 3+--=:
?cz=di URS /n=a v
v.
1:i:.z:
.a::7
-3a:1==
C..uza_,s:
2
.C.
L. Ild.-iigs I. Chak:2 var: la 2 3"'ica ld L las D. Dilip D. A. la=g J. J. 3a=1:eu L Gallaghar
?. L h-G. Eass
- 1. v n *.
L E da.
L ?. *- gs T Jay
?
Tek:ya=a ta a"d' : f ' -" d - ? vara disc =ssad and audi: fi= ding raper s ;;ssa=:ad :
UIS / 31=a ' s a=sgn=z=:.
>="-d--d==
c::::::ad is -ha f 11:vi=; tra J.g 4.
-.-,1 s.gfg.3,
,...,t g
,2,*_*a C.g.' '.***
d 4..
. 7. g,
.. a g,.J 4 e
4
?.
.. (. ~...?..
w.s.
.-. s
....,. y..a..a 4.
.g 3.
- g. J.
4.....J...
4....s.
.s. a., s.?
,J
.. J..s
.J.4. J. 4..g a,
..4
.1.. J.4 g...
.n 4
9
.. ~...
. l
~-.
mm,g_,,
g
--+-.--- -
m; +.;,;~2.._
-- - ~
-vw----
- i..... :...-, :%.:..e 1J ~'
e...
e 3
y*
.71 j -
/:j -
"ha dadicia==as ida=.d diad a:s==
d=== a=d * ca:a cha: a ;; blas a=1s:s 1: ha i=71a===:2:1:
ed U15/31=a's q" * :7 assura=ca ;;:g:s=.
y a addd :1c= c tha U2.S/11:=a d*#1:ia: ias, ;;: bis = vara ida:-' *1ad v':h:
~
-J.a is:arfaci:g. activi:iss he:vas: PCa=dI a:d i:s c==suha=:s.
Tha Qua.O Assu *- a Dapa.
has issuad -J::aa Mc:::=f::- - a la;c
.2
- = d: - ='-:
m thasa a"d'_: ft disss a:4 v'". f=11:n :hai: ;;:g:sss :: :ssch:1 -
,e.
- 7 2.0 Nc==ced:
=a==~a Kare-s (NC1s) hi-istad du:1:2 ~his Audi M.
3.L 3C3. 9CCG-75-3-CC4 Easpensibla Dapart=as::
h gi:aart=g I
3-
"ha U2.3/11=a QA 'p :g:s= fe verk c: Otahl Casc=1;:1 ::
Ca=7c= has=== *:aa: aff ac:ively i=-14=a=:a Aci1: ?*-^ zs Scs. ?L502-L ch:: ugh 9LiO2-
.~
-j have han: issuad :: U15/ 31=a.
C 3.2
)
NC2. ' DCC-79 3-CQ!
Easpensihla Daya.
"I:g1=aart g
=~::
Dasc=1;:1 =:
U13/31c=a's QA ;; g z= :::~ affac:ivaly 1
1=7 a=as:ad a=d as such is u=shia :
- ri; C
assurs=ca tha: dasig: =c:E parf===ad is
~
adaqua:a
- 3.3 NC2.eDC3-79 _2-CC6 Easic:sihla Daya: a ::
I:gi:aari:g-Desc:ip:1:::
No claarly da. fica!. 5:a fact ha:- as: U?.2/I:
a=i :ha.I:s-1:aard-- Depa: =a_: as rage.irai ANSI N45.1.11 (i 1.2 & 5.L).
Ingd-=aring Dapa.
an: - -~*' dcas ::: :nquira 'cha:
dasig= 12:arfacas ha ida=_1ftad a=d :::::::
4 hat.aa= ?Ca:dI, CZ5/31c=a, a=i ocha -
a :hi:ac:-s=g1=aars.
idit:1:- da:s' cd :hasa NCis are i= 1::a d'-
A.
t l
~
Md/f/
Parfor=ad t
- h. L Ear:s=
lfA t
l
\\
j XN.
& ~mer l~
C. L " ":% s 6
I L:..* a J.
,,,,/.,'==
W. A.
127====
A: schad:
i;ya=41= a e.. e.ee
.*"-.--M-**em
. e
- e. g. me..
m ome.e e.no we.
m
- e.mmen. ese es.
e e. e.
ee.
...-e..e
-e en
~~
~+,
e-g-mr.-
w w.---y gp y
p.
.--e...-mw--..w--
--.g
-e, - - - - - +
-.wei gr&
r m
+--N--
..a.
- c. :.
- r. a1., p.
....:s
- c j
.., n.;
v-3 7: :
.23.
... c.
p n
.i E
Ar?nDC 1.
.,4 m,. AC.- vu m.
e
' c
- L.0 Lafn:1 :as-3 (L)
L0c7130,~1=;e=d1=
7 (2) MSI V45.2.1-1974 L'T (3)
(4) ' ANSI N45.2.23-1973 W-(3) U?.5/Jch: 1. 3' a & Associa:as, I:gi=aars quali:7 Assu a= a 7
l'*-~ = ', lavts1== 1, 6 /9/78 '
N 2.0 De===as:s 'inviacad-(.t )
.-,4-e-,..a
.aa w
s (1)
Quali:7 Assura:ca u*-~ :se si:= ::::::2. :se::ds (3)
Dasig: -* t==L2 1:= pa ' ' gas
~
(L)
G-3.'.1:a 2--h:: Desig: lavias Packaga (3) 5;aed"d-*:1:ss a:d dasig: cri:ariz C
(5)
C==pu ar fila :sgistars, ;; gra 1:ss, and ca:.idied p g:s= L (7)
?:sjac: fila :sgis ars (3)
Ucc==a== Dis =1hu:1: !.is:2-(9)
Dasig Invian la;c :s (LO)
Audi: Daficia==7. aper:
?
3.0 1..a._s. ~ < - > <. s 1
I.L Se: liar Audi: ?*
dd--
14:c:.s
?* dd-e t
14e - --dart:=
(l)
!=dapa da:: ravies ci cri:1-
Ch--'
- 1:.4= dirac:* -- 3::::
assacts of UZS/31r.=a =c:t *.s
?C4=dI sgacid7 =; :ha ac:~*'
- s==1:34 : ba parf r_ac. h-r dasig: ravias c 11:i dz:as a Qcalt:7 Assur =ca E=qi=aa:
3: aach e4 :he ; :jac:s a.:
- ier
- s
- :s=s=1:-_ cd ec:'.r U15/31u=a I:31:aars.
- c11a==.
Such raviacs have
.== hea= perf:=ad c= cha bulk ed =c:'c ;;scarad fer PGandI.
l Dcc---:s hava *:me= : --e-d ::ad Oc ?G4 dI, ' aces;:sd f:: cc -
s::== i:, =-' asai :: ;a:f::=
=c:b a:.ha si:a.
c (1)
I:2.~c1 audi:s hava :::
C15/31=a =s: c: '::= ::
\\
.e.
...a.. a; _< a
...a.
.. Q...,._.<...
.I
.s
- w. a
..a.s...s.....
,.o 3~.1.;
,a n.,
..v
. s-. 221
...a.
~ -..
dese:1had '.: CI5/II =a's as audi:== aach f :ha ;;:jac
?:::ad::e 6.!.
L: is =c:ki:g f : ?CandI.
~ ~ ~ ~ - ~
^--~~~ ~~~
- _ _ _ ~.
g eun'. e wp
..---v
-Jo---3
--.*e+i-4,-
w p
y
m
-- -- - -----.. -.. g,7.-.7
~
.a u..:..
t Arp = dix A.
P'aga 2 of 8 i
re-as-,
a.. n -
.1a.
l (3)
- v..,a - -. -.,,
.a -,-., s c-
,..,.7 u.a. u.... a..d.s.,
s::.
.. 5 ~'."'.'.,.4 g
,J
-* : c '"
'r
- n *- **
- vd
- W
""J
- 4.. -
- - * 'c"1.. * &
r-.
,- 5,.a
.=.r....
'..='......"*
1:
ha.
1s,.s
.s973 s es...1s
'- = Q.1
-..g
- -. s..a s -.e 1:us.ye=21:s zs usL:
t as ;;:bla=s.
3)
- c.,
4.,.
- ... d..as 2 =.vd
- d
.d s e c..- -
c..a... :s a
m-
- c ac==:2:aly :sprase::
a====t:aly rap:ssas: ;;asas:
-ha ;;1sa== C?.Sl'1=a
'.L:ss ed au:h= 1:7 a:d
- t"-d - - d 1.
ns;c:sth:7
- W
(.e )
C.? e / ~~._. - s s Q,.,, s.,
c.ss,.-,
s.
..s,1-7 s.u a..,.c-C
'de- *ga: '.. s== = pard::. ad-t=di:s cf Dcc==a=: C:::::1 Ch:
u.a....a-.a. z as:s ca ru.
.v ns.. n.a.g s 7.a. c.e.
I
...a.-.
~
Dc.
= ~_: C ::::1 Ca=:ar.
1 c.,
s
(.4 ). e.eva. ~5
-,4 e--.,-
- c. r t..* d-c
=
'.<.d...
, 11
-a C
- g 2=s usar f
- *-7sts ef,
- s?" ad by QA u--* ', f:: all
?G1-" ;::$ac s da
- h1va
- c.,.u:a: ;::g:"-<.
??.3?.5C-g: -. a 1.2,,.a a s,. a..
,a
(,a s.s -
w a.
- 2) _.,- u.._-w
~~. a s..es,a..-.
-,,sa_,
e.s..
...c >...,;
. u a usa _
a a,.
--- s ag
-,a.
u.a.sas.>- - -..
vs.-< a-7 4-
.s es.,-,, k
- 7 w
.s_. C _.,...
e4
.s.,.,...,
v.
L:t L:1 K71L11hd ' * :7 L2 ct 4
e..
-a
,c.
(7)
Save:2.1 lass c=1-d - ;;=g :=.
C =pla s dec--
.s-1:=, as
..a...,
s n.
,.s e-e
,.. j e,.
.. e s. a s c # v,-..
.e pt;d-- -e $721.s hsva===
zLL ::==v.:a: ;;;;---* cs44==
l bes: cz:11fiai c:,a:dtiad
?c1:n p::i11:2.
,.: e ' 'y e 2:
u i
ha bach:::-2 i
da::. f c:
- e::' ' d - h:u se a.c::s:--e, 1
u,,n ey 1, r,n _.. = g,. a,.r S
,.-<....3 g.
- 4...., z. _.
1
(,, a a >.,., s 7s a 1) L.~ ga r... CT
,s-.,*
.a za-s.
.a.u- ~ ~..u
-r--
r --
tha ?:cjec: W-* gar; hcuavar,
- jec
- ftlas z=d
- :: s" :h :ha 1
-ha CA $d--
' s-2:as :h2: :ha C==c:a Sa:vd--s Oe;z: --:.
C==;
a: Sa:- :as "--*ga: Ls
....e,. s.u s. 4.
......-,-.. e.a.
,,,e
,.. n~ c
.,.., a
(.a )
...t-2 a.... ;.. 3 u2y.
- g. a.
4.-...........;...3 u e.
a...
- c. are.,.;
.s.a. _.._a s.,
a...-,..<
~.--.-.-_s
..s l
z,..
.a
.a.
/ :...>... :,...
r.-.e j,., -. r s a..za..,
-3
.ta,
a.
..v 1
.s... a,
,a
- c,-a-Q.s. u.,._.,..
.a..
L.. a s..
.a s. ;,,.. s,1 s.
--a
. rsa....~... -
. a., s...,..a a.,
cha. Q.i ;; g:2=.
~......
_3
-- -~
' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~
,e e.o. m
. ~ - - -. - -
,Y, y r-
% e.,. - a
.r
-~.
Faga 5 cf 3-j
.e F
as a,._, d.., u __
_2 s
4.0 e
4.L ?Ge
>? 5 s:sm._ s1 Ac:.~m rt==..edi: Ta2=
.T
.s.. e n,.
ut-L J. J. 3a:1: u.
Iqc-
- 7. g. 6,,.-,-
- 3. {I
~
W Y. J. Cht.s C3 3
S. D. I:ain Eqc E.-I.
!aa CI G. ~ 1., 7ea:'.cz=;:
EENZ.
N
.k.
h.-
. a 9
--W 98.
1
.3..
msl C
Q. J. C# e J. 3. E=ch. -
C. ue r4 M
I..f.
f$$Je O
.L. G. Wal ha
?.
- 3.. QCT %'s L..n c.re.j,s..-.
. ge T. cc.,...; -
I. 1 >arsc.
3. <., t.
2,.ya--. t,
?. Chet '-' ' d gz=.
n 8*
.e.
- C..a.Las1 f
1
- C~ ~A.
f
=.5+ w17 C. Ka:slar i
=. v o -.
l l
D. T1 5 l
I.. f *.e
%.TT4
- 3.
6 C. Qus:
e..
S. Sea:
?.. T k.:7t:.:
- e e
e. -emme...
ee.
- a.muu.
4 e
.e6-.
- ...*w...
ee-eme8
' ~~
~~:****
.--.4-
-~
~
.,.2...
S.. w '
A _
y rr-7sco i cf &
.t 4.4
.v- -..,
?.*_-'..'...1s
's ?...'....._'~.1 n.,e.....=.~.~.
.eava
' 'Ca:iI
,.' - ~ ~ va.-= ' '... => c ' ".'.. s. a c ' "..' */ '.2 ' '-= ' c-
+~
,r.. n. -,a ugs;.. as.
-~~r :7.g,
,,.2
..gz:.
-s.
z
.~e
. - -......zs
~~ ~
da.= - * - =.*.*
' - la.ch cf ' -..'.= ~..=. *...d..-
..'...a 4 '....g.z: hzd.
- ssul:ad i: as:- desi;i
- ht -* a=d quas
- 1
- cabla rasu.'.:s c if
'0 f.: Tasul:ad -*'-'7. 1: d:c:=a=:s:1 c=1.tsicus.
m u
s...s a.-.
a d.>..a
.a;.
c..a..> 1,.,7 g.sa a o a. s.< = rc.,.vs s..a s...
salac:ad ;c :1==s of C?.5/3t"-='s sc k :: va:147 :ha: 1: =a a"-d - a
.yg....,,.,..s 51 g as
.a..,.
.3
.s u
u v T.as ( C..'.. ) cas. =.s,c=s' %.'..=...*..~ ~..=.v'..su4 -,. '.. =.. =.. '
v a. ' "_' ~.~.
~
~
.g 2
.; e
.. v v.
e.
. -. a 2.,. 3,3.
.,..sa ;. --.
.i.
.w.
f c
c
,.uza: ;;:g:.=s used c
-' d e ;; jac: (-' 2 ' e a=d SAP I7) cara vari; per da % ;: g:==.
Es :nviewed cha hz:d "t :"' +:1::s
' disc =ve:
C Ch:: da i c.s.n
. : j a,. ".,-,g.,
.n..
r..,:hras sec icts (cf :a= sac:12:s) had been ;;aparad h-z.:..
,s.
O
<-~
?. asa sac:1:ss de ='
p:'-*-117 wi.E a=suars := NEC quas,1 :: c Ec:
.e.,., a..n..1.,.7s<1..:.a,.u. c1g ye......,s c = s. -
. - p 2.st,.--- -. sc..c..,a.-
. ~.
e.
-s c s
. s.
,s.... -,g.
.s,.s s.,..;
.i.,
s..
. tt. 4.s.
w.
che cal::12:1 :s "chackad (as cha h ed cha sc:k hzs haa:) c piz:
s,.~,
2.
te.nt
.s,...i..
a
.--.3.4..__... y a e.i a-'..:.'..= >.' =. ' '._' -.~-
-sa_s
.4.. -.t,- s.
2 7.t.
a t,.a.
- s. _e a r s n e. i.s o.c
- o.
2
/
1
"".a ?C4=d I:g'-= = chackad :he desig: ravian pa 'rega, a.ssu==.1 :,
H ~~ * ' 11 c' s.~.~~~~. as, w-- =
cu -,.t.. _*_' ' a, "' --=.-
< 7 c.'.
~
(
7'- + t ?svi. sad casig 2-e'7 sis s*_:t '-- ::: z:ad chz=ges 3::=.
C'. e /s..e.t.= a s. as>.
4.
e n
s. -....v.n-.
- ..ans s. s a. ;a.. -
.a. i.
.w.
.a.
, s-
- u... (.
u 7a- ( (..?.. ') gg3..,.s.C. s 4 s. T.
2-
.,ya v
.,.- 2 s.a.q m a 2a.,..,
a a
4..
.a s e
.w.
- - -- s a
- ...,t.;.a.
..;a.s..
. s.
e
.,a u u ;. s.,.
c yu:a: ;;:g:--* csai en e'e p :jec: (D't N.2D a:i SA7 I7) *czys :
v g.a.s. d ; g ;. w. g.,.
r.
g d.'. *.'..., ' a **rdavad
-b=
us e -
.'.d. ' n e
,s l
a=i :ss: ;;:g:c: car:1dicz:10=.
En ravissed a :'-4:= 50% of Cha c:
1
,1.aa s.s.. u.
s.u
.zs
.s
- s..
s s s.
4 1.a.
,.....v
- ., a.. a t..a.,
s..
Ch:: desi.;: fs rav aved by a: '==*:
- c c P -
a=g',- = ers a;+ ' - e : :ha ze as a...a_1-
- e. :. - u._ -
a.,g.s.
-,s..
,.a...=,
- 2.. :,
a Oha: Cha rasul.s of Ch2 dasig: :2ViaW 4 s accap;ahla.
T#*
c 011c:JI Cara E.
- % 1
$, C. 14 3, a:d *.. T k:7a=a.
u.
g.
.r. (.
a g (ss. e -. )..zg
.sec
- e. a s.
2-y, a t-a n.- se.y
- -.s cs..
.a
.....s... -..a. e - {
g.
.. ya. y.
- s. sa q t....
.t
.s.a..,.. a.
4.
a.
i 7...
7.
..s gg....g g.
=.%
y..a
. s...
y s.
=t
- j 9.::.,
.t q.. j.t.! -
77...
c..
- c.,
.t..t..t t,:, c.
rr.
f..
.".N /.._, s '_.'/',i.
^
l 1
M.
M
.m ee e _m =
m' h
.ww--
~ * " * * ~
~
t i-
- n. age 7 c, s.'
s.
-'-'-..'..=.** '..u".'..,~.*..:s ua a' C2.'... ' ' ' '.~. s ua -'
c".=_ # = '.
p;=pe:17 4 - $..a.d and -* ' ~ ' * :ad :
(a)
Dasig: C:1:2:12,
'r<
(b)
Cs. s 2..,.. -.: v..
s, s g n.,..%.e..t as.
(.4. a.,
.e.it.
. 1.a. -
.t. 1.A.s ),
a t.n.
( =)
C =sida:2:1: : C4ps (i.a., spacs raq ' ad f :
the- '
=ve==== a=d -- '-
s paca s ' ' wed :=
- 7 ha cons'da:nd a sals:L: :ss::s' :),
T (d)
Na:.. tl 7; cuse:f, N
( a)" J.c:--' t.cais a=d 5::sssas, a=i
.R.
(".s) rv.n,a2s.
.a s.
c s-a.:
.w.
4.
.--...:.gg3.. ~..,.y
,:v.3.,.
3..
. i..
.g C
s.
., %. T < ~; C.2 Ja24,
- a.
- s
- . sad r.se. 11, v,
?.
- .,a.-.u ug,., s 1,.o gg
.a...
<. sg C
.e. q.. j.eq e g gg y.r pr o
rad" d g fac::: f : cha al c=ahla'imsd c a c==:s:a s==z= sic: *-:
=as used. 3CandI ; i=:ad cu c'** cas ',- acassar r a d u d ly' c
s a 7a_.d
- a., g/t.t... Z
?
A..,.J L
J.
. L.*.5.s p.,,. 4..
.. A.
S.
w.
w.
- 1..,.
a., a..,.
A.t1...u.,,. a..=s
-a.
2... 2.:
sa._a. s.2.,.
p e/.:.t. a is, '
6 = =..-' ", d:#,- I sa.'.e.d.*....::7.ich C.# c.~- =....d.. -
e..
adt:C1'..f C O.iC.a 5% ::
I.
v.
- 7. v e -,..i. - g..e. ) egg.
..g 3.a.%..i.
.p
- a. a-,
. i.. C..,t<:~f p.
.-f-w-
c'.
-.'.'. a.'.. ~-~)
c
=
r'-, s r c..
.=.f.-u.
== a~-->'-
e.-4: 4.,. 4.-..
- e. e _r,..
.., g_a
.t
,4
,,,3 a 3,
. p..;e sa s
- r.s
,..s
.,,a.-
, - 7g$3 ggga <~
.. 1
..s.. -,,
a s.a s.a...a gy g-.
--a
.-- ~-
fer a.ss==p:1 =s usai i= davalspi=g '- a=2. lysis.
e.
..2
...,,.... s u,,.
_,c d..
a..,a n.s...
.i.ac._r
-_ u " -. '-' -. ' _' ada.
r es
=v== = ' ad "a
-'a.'......-
e ds z rasul:ad culy is a. =c:a c==sarvs:1va lead a=slysis.
da :=P awed cha '"lapii h' 73is f Fi:isi 1 s:*-*
- . 8Eri 7 3 7
Ivz1:1..1:n =tici. '.s a ; :g::= davalepad by 21== #.: LS77.
' ca esa:
<2 o
.a c
..a.,
a s.a,.a.
c a a.s a,.a.
.r
?d a=;1:aar has sa' tars.1 c:har ye:
'-t-*
ared cuas::l.::s which ara e
a A.
1<.a G..J..a... vs.;4,
N:s.
2.t29.c
- 1 s...J.
IS.
...C.
.r y.
.r
...n
. 3 4.?.... a..s
. 23a
.fa.;4..s
,.-49*
s.a
- 44. s. s.y y,.,t.e y Aggg.-,....
a
~
s v..
l l
--- - - ' * ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ '
- ~~
- j
.e.
G6 N---
.,gigm p-MG'ON-
,,,,e me.
e++
,que-
.,a s s & c.,, a..
v
.. _. ~., -
6.
L
.c.
.s g
n Mr. ?
E. 3achs: (E..) was isspensi":la #:= i=ves:1gs-'-
cha va:1di u 10: z=d car '*1u 10 cd cha FI?ISD ;;:g:::..
Es :sviaved u.gg%.,.
. a.
_-.u
_g.a
.s g.
.e...s, 3.,,
a., a.<. 3,.
L.,,... v' s.s
~~
g gb. e.g..
p.b s g
...g 7 g
%. a..
y s -d 2 4 )
h.tt.g. 4.a usa cA N.
p
%... w,.s.
s t.a:s.
s a ' 1.*. *..*..'. a. b ? 8 '-'., 3 ~ ~:T".?a zs c.
-z.-*.
_~
- sspac.tvaly ag'd-*: 2D*M.,.ul5*?S,.51?D U,
-d SA? 7;'1:
s'*
ezs cha scl 1::s wars acespu'.la a
- d. chs. a:11 sia dec==as:sd := cha 7
- a satisfactics'cd chs :ssyctsibla a=gicas:.
wa.
%: is fal:.hz: :ha c=1:'. 2}.
sviar of 31c:a's perfor-'~ca== :ha Dizhic Cany== 7:=jse: has :ssul:sd 1: s rs=gthasing chai: ;;:g s= a
.,...y 4 2,.. e - r,.....s... -s 3 4 2.~... v..'
sudd*.'...
3..+ 1 v.=
.'.3v.
.. ~.
M.
- ha e * :7 cf wc h pa.-f:r..ad 57 31=a's enginas' :s.
-w a
Rw C
- P l
I C
- ~ * ' * * * " ~ ~
v"~~~-~**
1~~~
- - - ~ ~ _ ~ ~. - '.
~~C
r Y' eGD ~
e e' S'
s s.
e et e*
?
l5 0
e O
t O
m ATTACICENT D e
e I
e e
S e
D O
I t
1.
e 4
.BN*
- * * * *+-eeepa4
--"O
~
e awm o6*
4'9 e
e e
eme agy,ww
.=w hNh-*
-N-ww
+y
]$%.a '. -
.s -..: a. - - -. u.a.
..a:-.--
i..q,..
- s 5
3
. y.-
TABLE 7 -
ANSI OA STANDARDS Reg.
Standard Year -
Guide Year i
Number
~A'dou te d Sub ject Number Issued
~
N45.2 1971 General QA requirements 1.28 1972 N45.2.1 1973 Cleaning of fluid systems 1.37 1973 N45.2.2 1972 Packaging, shipping, receiv t -
ing, storage and handling of equipment-1.38 1973 N45.2.3 1973' Housekeeping du-ing con-struction 1.39 1973 N45.2.4 1972 Installatica, inspection and testing af instrunentation and electr:.c equ:.p=ent 1.30 1972 N45.2.5 1974 Installation, inspection and testing of structural con-crete and steel 1.94 1975 N45.2.6 1973 Qr'Tifications of inspection,-
exanination and testing personnel 1 58 1973 N45.2.8 1975 Installation, inspection and testing of mechanical equip-menn and systens 1.116 1976 N45.2.9 1974 Collection, storage and edi tenance of.QA records 1.88 1974 N45.2.10 1973 QA ' terns and def3n* tions 1.74 1974 N45.2.11 1974 QA requirements in plant design 1.64 1973 N45.2.12 1977 Requirements for auditing QA programs 1.144 1979 N45.2.13 1976 Procurement of items and s e: vi.ces 1.123 1976 N45.2.16 1975 Calibration and control of measuring and tes None N.A.
N45.2.23 1978 Qualification of audit at personnel 1.146 1980 5-
.+
~~
- . N *.
.w,em+n
.g
.,4--~
.m
-^%
s..-em
-e--
..p 4%
,,,,n,,,
,,,,