ML20212L283

Insp Rept 99901341/99-201 on 990816-20.Non Compliance Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Tva Central Labs & Field Testing Svcs Activities for Calibration of Measuring & Test Equipment & Activities Re Metallurgical Testing & Matl Failure Analysis

ML20212L283
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/04/1999
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20212L275	List: ML20212L272 ML20212L277 ML20212L283
References
REF-QA-99901341 99901341-99-201, NUDOCS 9910070272
Download: ML20212L283 (12)

Text

E.

a t

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l Report no: 99901341/1999201 Organization: TVA Central Laboratories & Field Testing Services (CL&FTS)

Contact:

Sammy Walker, Manager QA/OStaff (408) 925-6587 Nuclear Activity: CL&FTS provides services to TVA plants (nuclear and fossil) and to the nuclear industry for the calibration and repair of measuring and test equipment (M&TE) and also provides a wide range of metallurgical analysis and material testing services.

Date: August 16-20,1999 i

inspectors: Richard McIntyre, Team Leader, lOMB 3

Jim Davis, EMCB l Hukam Garg, HlCB I Bill Beardon, Region 11 Gary Claxton, Region ll, Ol Approved by: Daniel H. Dorman, Chief ,b Quality Assurance and Safety Assessment Section lOMB Division of Inspection Program Management

)

l Enclosure 2 9910070272 991004 PDR GA999 EUTTVA 99901341 PDR u

1 INSPECTION

SUMMARY

The purpose of the inspection was to review the implementation of TVA Central Laboratories and Field Testing Services (CL&FTS) activities for the calibration of measuring and test equipment (M&TE) and activities related to metallurgical testing and material failure analysis. TVA CL&FTS provides these services and testing activities as safety related under their 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, quality assurance (QA) program to TVA power plants (nuclear and fossil) as well as to other nuclear licensees.

During this inspection, one nonconformance was identified and is discussed in Section 3.3 of this report.

2 STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS No previous inspection findings were examined during this inspection.

3 INSPECTION FINDINGS AND OTHER COMMENTS 3.1 Backaround TVA CL&FTS is a diverse engineering and technical service facility that has the capability to perform precision instrument calibration and repair; chemical and metallurgical analysis; nuclear qualification of commercial grade electrical equipment and other materials; specialized engineering services such as environmental qualification; and shop services such as the repair of electronic equipment.

The CL&FTS organization structure includes Instrumentation Services, Analysis and q Evaluation Services, Field Testing Services Departments, and the QA/C Staff. The i organization also includes the Business Development / Support Services department. All l of the calibration of precision M&TE is performed by the Instrumentation Services Department. Instrumentation Services is comprised of the following five groups:

Physical I; Physical ll; Electrical I; Electrical ll; and Laboratory Standards. The Analysis and Evaluation Services department perform a variety of technical support services, including metallurgical and material failure analysis by the Metallurgical Services Group.

The Analytical Chemistry, Oil Analysis, and Environmental qualification Groups are also part of the Analysis and Evaluation Services department.

This inspection was conducted to review the implementation of the TVA CL&FTS 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, QA program as it relates to calibration of M&TE and as it relates to metallurgical analysis and material testing.

3.2 Metalluraical Services

a. Insoection Scoce The NRC inspectors reviewed the applicable portions of the CL&FTS QA program related to metallurgical analysis and failure analysis. QAP No. 4.10 " Analysis and 2

9 Evaluation Analysis," describes the requirements and delineates the responsibilities for management of the CL&FTS Analysis and Evaluation Analysis Department. The purpose is to ensure that all analyses / tests performed for the nuclear power industry are properly controlled and accomplished in accordance with approved methods and are within QA program requirements. Metallurgical Services is a group within the Analysis and Evaluation Analysis Department. The inspectors also reviewed selected metallurgical Quality Program Instructions (QPis) and observed implementation of several procedures (QPIs) during actual test activities. Emphasis was placed on the use of standards traceable to NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards.

b. Observations and Findin.gs The following metallurgical QP!s were reviewed by the inspectors:

Instruction No. Ele 101.02-28 Metal Analysis using Varian Spectroscopy Atomic i Absorption-600; 201.03-001 Determination of Total Carbon and Sulfur in Metals using Infrared Spectroscopy; j 202.01-001 Determination of Hardness using a Rockwell Tester; I 202.01-002 Determination of Hardness using a Portable Tester; 202.01-003 Microhardness Testing of Material; 202.01-004 Brinell Hardness of Metallic Materials; 202.01-007 Determination of Hardness using a Rockwell 556T Tester; 202.01-008 Microindentation Hardness Testing; 202.01-009 Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Material; 203.02-002 Recommended Metallographic Techniques; 203.02-003 Dimensional Measurements for Metal Samples; 206.01-001 Chemical Analysis by X-Ray Floureser ce Spectroscopy of Solid Metals; 327.03-002 Tinius Olsen Super "L" Universal Test Machine; and 327.03-003 Tinius Olsen 1000 Series Universal Test Machine.

During review of the OPIs the inspectors noted that revisions to the OPIs did not include the initials or the signature of the preparer as required by QAP 2.1 Section 6.2.2.2.11.

QAP 2.1 provided a step-by-step procedure for preparing and approving QPis. CL&FTS demonstrated that for newer QP1 sections, the preparer's signature is electronic and the presence of the preparer's initials in the document indicates that the preparer has electronically signed the document.

There was no discussion in the QPis on how the proving rings used to calibrate the tensile machines are calibrated and maintained traceable to NIST. CL&FTS staff j demonstrated that the proving rings are sent to a CL&FTS approved supplier, Morehouse, where they are calibrated using standards traceable to NIST.

3 l

t

Observations Specific to the OPIs Reviewed:

QPls 202.01-001,202.01-002,202.01-003, and 202.01-004, which described various  !

methods for determining the hardness of a metallic material, interchanged the referencing of National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) when describing the calibration blocks for these instructions.

NBS officially changed its name to NIST in the mid 1980's. The TVA staff demonstrated to the inspectors that the current Wilson calibration blocks are traceable to NIST.

Instructions 202.01-001,202.01-003, and 202.01-004 required that the ca% ration standard serial number be identified and that the test results from the calibration standard be included in the final report. Instruction 202.1-02 did not require that the calibration standard serial number be identified and referenced and that the test results from the calibration standard be reported. TVA staff noted that even though the QPI did not include this requirement, Section 4.10 of the QAP Manual requires that the calibration standard serial number be identified and referenced and that the test results from calibration standard be reported.

The QPis 202.01-001,202.01-002,202.01-003, and 202.01-004 reference ASTM standards that are no longer valid standards since they are more than 5 years old.

However, the inspectors noted that the ASTM standards referenced in the OPIs do have the year of issue specified. This ensures that if an ASTM standard undergoes a significant revision, the revised standard does not become the referenced standard, possibly without review by the TVA staff. The inspectors verified that CL&FTS has recently implemented a new requirement that all quality program instructions are revised every 4 years.

The inspectors pointed out that QPI 202.01-008 references ASTM E-384 with no year indicated. CL&FTS staff stated that the 1989 edition of the standard is being used and that no modifications to this standard have been made in later editions. CL&FTS staff also stated that when the QPI is revised, the appropriate edition of the standard will be in {I the revised standard. I QPI 202.01-009, on notched bar impact testing of metallic materials, states in the General Instructions that this method is used to find brittle materials. The inspectors I suggested that the General Instructions be modified to state that this method can be used to determine ductile-to-brittle transition temperature, nul-ductility temperature, upper shelf energy, and toughness at any temperature.

1 Laboratory Environmental Monitorina I During the tour of the laboratory facilities the inspectors inquired what was the basis for the different (68'F+/- 1 F and the 72 F +/- 2 F) laboratory temperatures that are monitored in the various laboratory areas using temperature / humidity chart recorders?

l CL&FTS stated that QAP No. 4.1, "M&TE Calibration Program," Section 7.1, " Facilities and Environment," provided references that stated that the 68 F+/- 1 F or 20 C room is for dimensional measurements conducted in the Standard Laboratory room while the 4

I l

r --

. 1 I 72 F +/- 2*F is for other disciplines of metrology such as electrical standards. In addition, l l the relative humidity is maintained below 50 percent . i The inspectors determined that NCR 99061 was written in December 21,1998 l identifying inconsistencies between program requirements and laboratory environmental l monitoring equipment performance. This issue was also identified as audit finding l (Deviation Report) in the WA Nuclear (TVAN) Supplier Audit 99V-17, dated June 4, 1999. This was an external audit of the TVA CL&FTS QA program by TVA Corporate Quality Assurance.

NCR 99061 was closed on March 22,1999, and the remaining issues were rolled into NCR 99125. NCR 99125 was written on August 15,1999, to address ineffective implementation of environmental monitoring described in the above Deviation Report.

CL&FTS stated that a complete upgrade of laboratory environmental monitoring was ongoing as part of the corrective actions described by CL&FTS to the TVAN deviation Report 99V-17-1. These corrective action activities, if adequately implemented and  !

completed, appear to address the WA CL&FTS internal and TVAN Corporate external audit finding concerns with CL&FTS laboratory environmental monitoring.

Review of Imolementation of CL&FTS Testina Activities I 1

The inspectors observed a demonstration of the preparation of material samples and the j testing of samples using X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy to determine the chemical i composition of the metal sample using QPl 206.01-001. The inspectors were also  !

provided a demonstration of the preparation of samples and the infrared testing of metal samples to determine carbon and sulfur. The use of calibration standards for each method was also demonstrated. The technician conducting these procedures knew the procedures in detail and had no difficulty in preforming the tests. The technician was asked what metallurgical procedures he conducted. He stated that it is CL&FTS policy that all laboratory technicians are trained to conduct all of the procedures in the Metallurgical Laboratory. The inspectors stated that this was somewhat unusual to have a technician trained on more than one or two pieces of equipment. However, the inspectors did not identify any problems with the conduct of the tests and did find that the cross-training on the various QPis was desirable.

c. Conclusion During the review of the OPIs the inspectors identified a number of observations and identified areas that required clarification by CL&FTS. CL&FTS was able to answer all questions and clarify the inspectors issues related to the observations. Based on this, no nonconformances were identified during this portion of the inspection. The NRC inspectors were given demonstrations of the X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy test to determine chemical composition and the Infrared analysis test to determine carbon and sulfur concentration. The technician conducting the tests was well trained and was very l knowledgeable in performing all the steps and procedural requirements. Finally, c

77 9 :

L > the recent and ongoing long term upgrades to hardware and software for environmental monitoring of temperature and humidity should provide adequate coverage to satisfy the

accuracy requirements of the QAP.

'~

• 3.2 lTrainina and Qualifications of WA CL&FTS Personnel

a. Inspection Scope

. The team reviewed training and personnel records for selected managers, laboratory i ' " technicians and calibration personnelin both the instrumentation Services and Analysis and Evaluation Services groups to verify that those personnel were adequately trained and qualified as per TVA CL&FTS QAP requirements to perform safety-related work- .

activities.

- b. Observations and Findinas .

The team reviewed training and personnel history records (PHRs) for the Quality Assurance / Quality Control Manager, instrumentation Services Manager, five instrumentation department program administrators, and the Lead Metallurgical Engineer. Additionally, training records and PHRs for one quality specialist and 10 technical personnel were reviewed. At least one supervisor and one technician from the Metallurgical Laboratory and each of the five groups in the Instrumentation Services Department were included in this review. Each individual's academic training and experience was evaluated and compared to the specific requirements stated in the associated job description to verify that these personnel were qualified to perform work

. activities commensurate with their responsibilities.

. The team determined that, for those training records and PHRs reviewed, selection of management and technical personnel met the academic training and experience requirements contained in the associated TVA job descriptions. Each individual's level of training and previous work experience satisfied the minimum stated requirements prior to that individual being placed in the respective position. In most cases the individual's actual experience level was well above the minimum required years of on-the-job experience.

' CL&FTS QAP No.11.1, Rev. 8, " Quality Assurance Indoctrination and Technical l

Training" requires CL&FTS personnel to receive initial indoctrination training including

- training on quality assurance re4,lrements. Additionally, each individual was required to

receive an initial evaluation of on-the-job performance prior to independent performance of assigned duties. In most cases individuals had received the required level of initial indoctrination training and qualification was properly documented prior to that individual

! _performing safety-related work activities. However, the team identified one example of a 1

manager that had performed safety-related work activities prior to completion of initial indoctrination training.

The Instrumentation Services Manager, who had newly reported to the CL&FTS facility on August 15,1998, had not completed initial indoctrination training until October 1, 6

l-i j i-

1998. In this case, the individual had considerable experience as an instrumentation engineer and instrumentation supervisor at TVA's Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, was fully qualified in the new position. This issue had been considered after the newly assigned manager had been placed directly in the position. CL&FTS management had decided that a problem had not existed since all quality related work activities would receive additional review and signature from the Quality Manager or another qualified manager until such time that indoctrination training was completed. However, a small number of work related documents were processed without this additional level of review prior to October 1,1998. The failure to satisfy indoctrination training requirements had occurred due to a lack of sensitivity by CL&FTS management and Quality Assurance personnel.

The team noted that this had been an isolated case and that only a small number of work activities had been affected.

The inspectors determined that this problem had previously been self-identified by CL&FTS personnel and documented in NCRs 99032 and 99033 on November 6,1998.

Corrective actions included verification of completed indoctrination training and review of all potentially affected documents to determine impact on quality related work activities.

CL&FTS quality assurance personnel verified that only 4 out of 183 potentially affected records had included the new manager's signature as the sole authorizing signature.

Additionally, no problems were identified during the subsequent review of those records.

The inspectors emphasized that the process used to qualify the newly hired manager was contrary to requirements of QAP 11.1, Section 6.1.1, but no nonconformance would be written based on the fact that it had been self-identified and corrective actions had been comlpeted.

The team determined that periodic training on revisions to CL&FTS QAP manual, procedures and quality assurance requirements was adequate. In each case, for those training records reviewed, documentation was available to show that personnel had received additional training associated with significant program or procedure changes.

Additionally, each individual was required to receive an annual evaluation of on-the-job performance in order to continue to independently perform assigned duties.

c. Conclusions Based on the information reviewed the inspectors concluded that CL&FTS personnel were adequately qualified to perform assigned duties. The team did identify one example of a manager that had performed safety-related work activities prior to completion of initial indoctrination and training. However, the one example described above was an isolated case and had been previously self-identified and included and addressed by the TVA CL&FTS NCR process.

3.3 Instrumentation Services

a. Inspection Scope During this inspection, the NRC inspectors reviewed selected calibration reports, Quality Program calibration instructions, nonconformance reports (NCRs), and observed a

(

demonstration of the computerized Labmate calibration report process and the Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) and Records and Information Management Systems (RIMS) programs.

QAP No. 4.1, "M&TE Calibration Program," describes the requirements and delineates the responsibilities for management of the CL&FTS calibration program. The purpose is to ensure that M&TE calibrated for use in the nuclear power industry is properly i controlled and calibrated at specific intervals.

b. Observations and Findinas Calibration Instructions l

During this inspection the following two QPls were reviewed by the inspector:  ;

instruction No. Title Rev. Date Rev. level 308.01-009 Resistance Test Boxes 8/23/90 01 416.01-009 Scientific Columbus Transducer Calibrator 1/6/97 09 l The first instruction was very simple and the second was complex. During the review, the inspector noted that the originator had not signed the instruction. The TVA CL&FTS personnel explained that when the original instruction is written the originator also signs the instruction, however, once the instructions are written by the computer, the originator l is not required to sign the instruction. TVA showed the signature of the originator on the original instruction which resolved the instructor's concern. The inspector also requested the originator (J. Moore) for the second instruction to demonstrate how the instruction is used during actual calibrations. Mr. Moore demonstrated one portion of the instruction,

" Voltage Calibration," to the inspector in a step by step manner. Other portions of the instruction for " Current Calibration,"" Power Calibration," and " Error Meter Calibration" were also explained by the originator. Based on this demonstration, the inspector was able to determine that the instructions are adequate for these calibrations.

The inspector also noted that the format for the instructions included many sections such as, Maintenance, Data Evaluation, Final Check, and Process, but most of the instruction does not include any instruction for performing these sections. CL&FTS explained that the format is standard format and provide flexibility to add additional information when required. The inspector was satisfied with the CL&FTS's explanation.

Calibration Reoorts The inspector requested CL& FTS to provide a list of calibration work which was performed for external contracts (non TVA plants) during last two years. CL&FTS provided the list and the inspector selected the following reports for two clients, Cooper Nuclear Station and Crane Movats for review.

l l 8 l

i: .

)

)

. l

- Reoort No. ,

Qate Client ligrn j

1000019567- 10/21/98 . Cooper Nuclear Station ~ Deadweight Tester- Pneumatic 1000018563? 9/11/98 Cooper Nuclear Station Deadweight Tester- Hydraulic E28473' 5/18/99 Cooper Nuclear Station Digital Multimeter 1000027403: . 6/10/99: Cooper Nuclear Station - Electrostatic Voltmeter 1000028453- 5/13/99 Cooper Nuclear Station Resistance Meter 1000028897 6/03/99 Crane Movats . Deadweight Tester- Hydraulic 1000028971- L 5/26/99 Crane Movats Megohmmeter During the review of the reports the inspectors noticed that some reports were signed by

= the originator and others were not signed by the originator. The inspector was concerned that the reports could be changed without the knowledge of the originator.-

The inspector requested CL&FTS to provide some calibration reports which have been revised at a later date. The inspector reviewed the following revised calibration reports:

Report No. ~ Rate client llem 1000029120 6/3/99 Peco Energy Co. Torque Wrench (Indicating)

~1000027927  : 4/28/99 . Browns Ferry NP Impulse Rotary Transducer 1000029741 6/21/99 Browns Ferry NP Digital Pressure Gauge 1000027097 5/4/99- Watts Bar NP Conductivity /ph Meter 1000024946 3/1/99 Browns Ferry NP Sling Psychrometer

. The inspector noticed the same pattern on these reports also. The inspector questioned CL&FTS to' explain how the originator becomes aware of the changes made to the calibration report by the approving personnel, as it seems the originator never signs the report. CL&FTS explained that the organization is small and all personnel work in the close proximity. -Therefore, if any questions or problems are identified by the approving person, he will first talk to the originator before making any changes to the calibration report. CL&FTS also explained that only the Physical l Group requires the originator to sign the calibration repost. ' This is a requirement only in the Physical i Group and is in f addition to the requirements of section 6.6.2.18.1 of QAP No. 4.1, Rev.10, "M&TE Calibration Program," dated 1/15/99.  ;

i CL&FTS also explained that all the calibration reports are contained in EDMS/ RIMS and

is accessible to all personnel._ CL&FTS also explained that the Labmate program which is used to generate the calibration report is also available to all technicians and managers. The inspector also observed the demonstration of the Labmate and I confirmed the accessibility of the calibration report from the Labmate. However, once i

' the technician or.the originator of the calibration report signs the report he will no longer )

L be able to access and make any changes to the report.~ But, if he does have any -j problem with the calibration report, he can raise and hopefully resolve the issue with the j reviewer. During interactions with technicians, the inspectors also determined that i technicians are not trained on the accessibility of the document from the EDMS.

CL&FTS explained that all the management personnel were trained on the system and 9 . i a

j 1

1 were then asked to train personnel working for them. However, this may not have occurred because of time, priorities or some other reasons. The team recommended and CL&FTS management committed to conduct formal training for technicians on the EDMS. The team considered this to satisfactorily resolve the concern.

Nonconformance Reports CL&FTS QAP No. 7.2, " Control of Nonconformances," establishes the requirements and assigns the responsibilities to ensure the identification, documen+.ation, control, and -

disposition of items and activities that do not conform to the CL&FTS QA requirements.

The inspector requested CL&FTS to provide a list of all Nonconformance Reports (NCRs) that had been issued during the last two years. CL&FTS provided the NCR logbooks for fiscal years (FY) 98 and 99. The inspector selected the following NCRs for review:

NCR No. Qatt item Descriotion NCR Descriotion Comole3d 98079 2/27/98 Pressure Controuer Calc Error in spreadsheet 3/3/98 98102 4/29/98 Load Cell with Indicator incorrect Standard No. 7/23/98 98163 8/27/98 Standard Resistor Out of Tolerance Open 98168 9/8/98 Instruction 307.04-004 R2 Instructions not dated 11/12/98 Instruction 406.02.018 R0 99035 11/9/98 Teraohmmeter Failed in Service 11/23/98 99075 1/25/09 Deadweight Tester Out of Tolerance 2/2/99 99077 1/28/99 Spreadsheet Error on Page 5 2/22/99 99106 3/24/99 DC Reference Standard Instr Callight not lit 6/18/99 99123 4/21/99 Proving Ring Uncertainty Calc. does not Open Conform to ASTM E74-95 CAR 99-02 99182 7/19/99 AC Voltmeter Metcal Proc. SCR990075 RO uses wrong voltage at Test Point No. 27.004 Open 99185 7/20/99 Spreadsheet Out of tolerance condition Open 4

The inspectors noted that the threshold used for identifying and documenting NCRs at CL&FTS was very low and consider this as an apparent straagth in the NCR process .

This was evident sirice the number of NCRs issued in F" % was 179 and 203 so far for FY 99. Also, QAP No. 7.2, Section 5.4.1 states that ar.; employee can issue an NCR for any suspect deficiency in characteristic, documentation, procedure, process or method which renders the quality of an item or report data unacceptable or indeterminate and notifies the immediate supervisor and/or department manager.

i 10 l

l 1

\

NCR Disposition and Closure CL&FTS QAP No. 7.2, Section 5.2.2 requires the Manager, QA/QC staff to maintain a log of nonconformances to ensure timely resolution and disposition. The inspector determined that QA/QC manager issues the list of all open NCRs weekly to all supervisors. The inspector requested the latest list documenting the open NCRs. Upon reviewing the list dated 8/19/99, the inspector noted that there were six NCRs which were initiated in 1998 but were still open. During the review of NCR 98163, the inspector noted that the corrective actions were identified for the closure of the NCR. However, corrective actions had not been implemented and the NCR was still open. CL&FTS explained that this NCR is applicable to Standards Laboratory and just one technician and his supervisor are assigned to work in the Standards Lab. The technician was the initiator of the NCR and the supervisor was the reviewer of the NCR. Therefore, both are quite familiar with and are following the requirements of the corrective actions. CL&FTS agreed that this NCR should have been closed in a timely manner but somehow had j fallen through the cracks. The failure to ensure timely resolution and disposition of six i NCRs issued during FY 98 per the above QAP requirement was identified as the first example of Nonconformance 9990134/99-01-01.

CL&FTS QAP No. 7.2, Step 6.1.3.11, requires that the QA/QC manager or designee, perform a final review and approval signifying the NCR is complete by signature and date and forwards the completed paperwork to Document Control for processing to EDMS/ RIMS. However, during the review of the NCRs, the inspector identified that NCR packages, NCRs 99035,99075 and 99090, did not include complete documentation and no reference was given to the other documentation.

CL&FTS explained that EDMS will identify all the documentation associated with the particular instrument in calibration and they produced the documentation when requested. However, the inspector concluded that the procedure requires a complete NCR package be sent to EDMS, hence, either all the document should be referenced in the NCR or should be attached to the NCR. The inspector was also concerned that the once the NCR is closed, the initiator of the NCR does not get the copy of the completed NCR package. The failure to include the complete NCR documentation package or a reference tr all the documentation associated with the particular instrument calibration per the above QAP requirement was identified as the second example of Nonconformance 9990134/99-01-01.

CL&FTS explained that to the inspectors that all the NCRs are available on the EDMS and could be retrieved by anyone. The inspector observed the demonstration of EDMS and determined that the document could be easily retrieved from the EDMS but all the personnel should be trained to use it effectively. As discussed previously, the team recommended and CL&FTS management committed to conduct formal training for technicians on the EDMS.

11

, 1 i

~

l I

c. Conclusions  ;

Based on the information reviewed the inspectors concluded that CL&FTS personnel were adequately implementing the QA program requirements for the calibration of M&TE with the exception of the two NCR examples identified above in Nonconformance 9990134/99-01-01. I I

4.0 LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Richard L Morley, Manager, Central Laboratories & Field Testing Services  !

Sammy R. Walker, Manager, QA/QC Staff Douglas Snyder, QA/QC Specialist Sc.ott Long. Manager, instrumentation Services, Rick Grau, Manager, Analysis & Evaluation Services Joe Saxon, Program Administrator, Physicali Lynn Crawford, Program Administrator, Physical 11 Roger Phillips, Program Administrator, Electrical l Vince Kmet, Program Administrator, Electrical ll  !

Jerry Moore, Supervisor, Laboratory Standards I

12 1