ML20214U902
| ML20214U902 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1986 |
| From: | TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214T770 | List: |
| References | |
| 222.3-(B), 222.3-(B)-R, 222.3-(B)-R00, NUDOCS 8612090449 | |
| Download: ML20214U902 (12) | |
Text
_- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i 1
~'
. , TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE: SEQUOYAH ELEMENT REVISION NUMBER: 0 TITLE: SUPPORT WELD DESIGN Drawings Do Not Always Show Weld Size PAGE 10F 12 REASON FOR REVISION:
k 1
\
PREPARATION PREPARED BY: , ,
Eu C,An-~.l 10 8 6
/ M IGNATURE DATE REVIEWS M REVIEW COMMITTEE i 10 - 20 ** WS YG
[
E DATE TAS: V SIGNATURE DATE CONCURRENCES
$ ; N.d.- /o - Z S-Sc (D O CEG-H:
O 2 db /04Y 6 Si SRP:
SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE DATE
$4 3g APPROVED BY:
co o.a.
ECSP MANAGER DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE !
CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
, , TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 2 0F 12
- 1. CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUE (S):
Concerns: Issues:
EX-85-061-004 a. Pipe support drawings do not
" Drawings do not always show always show all details, complete details, i.e., specific particularly weld sizes.
weld size. Construction concern.
CI has no additional detail." b. Welds are not detailed properly on pipe support drawings.
OE-QNS-8 "Two areas regarding design c. Effect of base plate flexibility methods for pipe supports are on anchor bolt design is not not receiving proper consideration: being considered. (Discussed in Construction Subcategory 10400.)
o Effect of baseplate flexibility on anchor loads, o detailing methods for welds."
- 2. HAVE ISSUE (S) BEEN IDENTIFIED IN ANOTHER SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS? YES X NO I Identified by a. NRC b. NSRS Date a. 08/26/66 b. 03/07/86 Documentation Identifiers:
- a. NRC Report No. 50-327, 328/86-33
- b. NSRS Investigation Report #1-85-473 NPS
- 3. DOCUMENT NOS., TAG NOS.. LOCATIONS OR OTHER SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIVE IDENTIFICATIONS STATED IN ELEMENT, None
- 4. INTERVIEW FILES REVIEWED:
Interview files EX-85-061 and OE-QMS-8 were reviswed in response to RFI #SQN-634. No additional information, other than "K" forms, appear in file EX-85-061. File OE-QMS-8 contains no "K" forms; however, it contains interoffice memos addressing base plate flexibility issue.
1010d - 10/20/06
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: O PAGE 3 0F 12
- 5. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT:
See Appendix A.
- 6. WHAT REGULATIONS. LICENSING COMMITMENTS. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
See Appendix A.
7.
LIST REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION. MEETINGS. TELEPHONE CALLS. AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT.
See Appendix A.
- 8. EVALUATION PROCESS:
- a. Select a sample of pipe support drawings for review.
- b. Review supports selected in item (a) to verify completeness of the drawings.
- c. Verify as-built condition if the drawings reviewed have incomplete information.
- d. Evaluate the findings.
- 9. DISCUSSION. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Discussion:
The issues "a" and "b" refer to incompleteness of pipe support design drawings especially in terms of weld sizes and details.
Issue "c" refers to the effect of base plate flexibility on the anchor bolt design. The first two issues are discussed here. The third issue is in the scope of the Construction group and is evaluated under Subcategory #10400.
1010d - 10/20/86
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: O PAGE 4 0F 12 To evaluate the validity of the concern, the 34 pipe support drawings listed in App. A, 5.f were selected for review. These supports were randomly selected from the systems listed below.
During their selection, consideration was given to include different types of supports such as snubbers, struts, springs, anchors, and rigid frames.
o Main Steam 4
o Aux. Feedwater o Upper Head Injection '
o Blow Down o Containment Cooling o Containment Spray o Fuel Pool Cooling o Reactor Coolant o Safety Injection o Condensate o Chemical Volume Control Each of the 34 support drawings were reviewed to determine if:
o All welded connections have the required weld symbols o All items specified in the bill of materials are correct and complete o Suf ficient dimensional information is included for use by construction o Design details are presented with sufficient clarity o Degree of completeness for other miscellaneous items (location plan, load or movement information, clearances, etc.) is acceptable o Detailing method for welds is properly considered Of the total 34 support designs reviewed, 16 were determined to be complete in every major respect. For the remaining 18 support designs the following observations were made:
Support Item MK No. Rev Observations Comments I l-MSH-77 2 Weld size missing for FCR should have been generated item 1 to item 2 before installation.
1010d - 10/20/06
, , TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER: 222.3 (8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 5 0F 12 Support item MK No. Rev Observations Comments 2 1-MSH-300 905 North arrow not Drafting error. No impact specified on plan view on construction.
3 1-MSH-357 905 Item 4 material not FCR should have been generated specified in bill of before installation.
materials. Weld for item 4 to item 1 and to pipe clamp not specified Fillet weld specified FCR should have been generated for item 2 to existing before installation.
steel is incorrect 4 1-AFDH-270A 5 Installation orienta- May delay construction /
tion for item 7 not QC inspection, but is not specified a safety concern.
5 1-AFDH-369 906 Weld for item 1 to FCR should have been generated item 2 not specified before installation.
6 1-FDH-45 1 Weld size is missing FCR should have been generated for item 1 and item 2 before installation.
7 2-UHIH-145 905 Fillet weld specified FCR should have been generated for item 1 to item 5 is before installation.
incorrect ,
8 2-SGBH-70 1 Weld size to process FCR should have been generated pipe not specified before installation.
1010d - 10/20/86
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUM8ER: O PAGE 6 0F 12 Support Item MK No. Rev Observations Comments 9 2-SGBH-72 1 The fillet and pene- FCR should have been generated tration welds specified before installation.
for item 1 to item 2 are conflicting 10 2-H10-352 1 Mark No. should be Draf ting error. No impact 2CCH-352 on construction.
11 2-CCH-367 1 Minimum thickness for FCR should have been generated item 7 not specified before installation.
12 2-CCH-372 2 Weld size item 1 to FCR should have been generated item 10 not specified before installation.
Section "B-B" is used Drafting error. No impact on for two different installation, sections 13 2-CCH-374 1 Weld for item 3 to FCR should have been generated item 7 not specified before installation.
, Dimensions for FCR should have been generated installation for item before installation.
13 not shown Item 3 quantity Draf ting error. No impact on should be 2 installation.
14 2-CSH-15 905 No weld specified for FCR should'have been generated item 5 before installation.
15 1-FPCH-527 2 Weld for item 13 to FCR should have been generated item 16 not specified before installation.
1010d - 10/20/86
. . ~-_ __ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ -.__._
, TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 7 0F 12 Support Item MK No. Rev Observations Comments 16 1-RCH-134 905 Item 6 not numbered Draf ting error. No impact on in bill of materials construction.
Weld shown in Sec. Draf ting error. No impact on B-B is not clear construction.
17 2-RCH-242 903 3/16 all-around weld Draf ting error. No impact on (near item 2) is an construction.
error 3/16 weld for RBKT Draf ting error. No impact on to PL is pointing to construction.
wrong direction 18 2-CVCH-614 904 No location reference FCR should have been generated is given for item 2. before installation.
Summary of observations:
- a. Missing weld size and welds - 25%
- b. Improper weld details, i.e., - 17%
wrong weld symbols
- c. Miscellaneous; such as item - 28%
missing in bill of materials, wrong hanger mark, no orientation and location for item, and missing north arrows ,
for plan views SQN was requested to verify as-built weld size, type, and design adequacy for the missing welds identified in the above review for the following support drawings.
- a. 1-MSH-77
- b. 1-AFDH-369
- c. 1-FDH-45
- d. 1-FDCH-527 1010d - 10/20/86
. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM l REVISION NUMBER: 0
( . l
- PAGE 8 0F 12 l
In response to this request, SQN performed walkdowns (App. A, 5.m) to verify the missing welds, and found all-around fillet weld in all cases. The design adequacy of these welds was also verified by evaluating weld calculations (App. A, 7.g). This verification indicates that adequate welds were performed, even though they were missing on the support drawings.
TVA imple~ anted a welding project review plan in early 1986 to address various welding concerns for their nuclear plants. The ,
scope of this program is to determine the adequac,y of TVA's welding program and to assure that installed weldments meet code and the regulatory requirements.
During Phase II of the welding review program, SQN inspected structural welds in accordance with NCIG-01 requirements published by Nuclear Construction Issues Group. Welds for 403 joints (50 structures) were inspected from pipe, conduit, HVAC, and cable tray supports and other miscellaneous structure supports. Of the total 50 structures inspected, 33 were from pipe supports. Only 16 percent of pipe support components welds were found with
'l '
deficiencies such as joints with weld missing, omitted weld, and 4
size. These deficiencies were evaluated by SQN (DE) and were accepted by engineering evaluations for design loads.
l In June and July 1986, NRC audited TVA's welding project Phase II Report. NRC team inspected 32 pipe supports involving approximately 582 structural. welds (App. A, 5.k and 5.1). All of these welds were previously inspected by TVA per the above i described program. The supporting engineering calculations for the welds, found to be deficient during the TVA inspection ef fort, were also reviewed for adequacy. The following observations were noted by the NRC:
- a. Five supports had flare welds which were not shown on the d rawings .
- b. Two support drawings do not have adequate weld details.
! c. Four supports had shiming plates added that were not shown ;
on the drawings,
- d. The vertical position of one support differed from the support drawing, i
j e. In some cases the drawings called for fillet weld while the
- actual welds were found to be bevel welds.
1010d - 10/20/86 1
-- _ - - - . _ _ - ~ _ _ . - _ _ . - _ , . . - _ _ . . , - ___. _ . , _ . ~ . . . . _ , _ - - _ _ _ _ , ,_,____ m.c- ,_
. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER: 222.3 (8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 i
PAGE 9 0F 12 I
lhe NRC conclusion of the audit finding is quoted below:
"With the exception of the items identified above, the inspected welding activities were found to comply with the applicable specifications. Most of the identified weld deficiencies have been
- identified and evaluated as a result of the TVA reinspection effort. The deficient welds were determined to be adequate for the intended i application. The NRC inspectors reviewed the supporting engineering calculations for those welds and no problems or discrepancies were noted."
The evaluation team's findings and similar findings of NRC audit
' team conclude that the pipe support drawings do not show complete details and welds are not detailed properly. However, the verification of the missing welds by TVA and the verification of the TVA Welding Program Phase 11 report by NRC demonstrate that the supports were adequately installed and there is no safety concern.
Four employee concerns on SQN related to inaccurate design drawings and lack of their agreement with as constructed configuration were investigated and reported by Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) in March 1986. This investigation report (App. A, 5.a) concluded that:
o The employee concerns were valid.
o SQN did not have adequate control of processin2 Field Change Requests (FCRs).
o SQN did not have adequate control of reporting configuration deviation which is required by SQN procedure AI-25.
O SQN did not have a systematic overall configuration control program in place.
As a result of the above report, SQN committed to a " program plan for conversion to configuration control drawings,," (App. A, 5.b).
SQN has also committed to NRC (App. A, 5.k) that this program, when implemented, will address irregularities in support details as
- quoted below
4 i
a 101Dd - 10/20/86
. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 10 0F 12 "Section 3 of Volume II of TVA's revised nuclear performance plan for Sequoyah provides an action plan that will improve the design control program for the Sequoyah nuclear plant when implemented.
This plan includes the reconciliation of
'as-constructed' and 'as-designed' drawings to achieve a single set of plant drawings. This plan should address the irregularities identified above to ensure that the welds and welding requirements stated on the 'as designed' drawings match.the installed hardware."
Findings
- a. The concern is valid as SQN pipe support drawings do not always show complete details such as weld size, type, etc.
- b. In spite of the above incomplete information, the actual pipe support installations are complete, especially for adequate welds,
- c. SQN has committed to a program plan for conversion to configuration control drawings to correct the problem of incomplete details on design drawings.
Conclusion:
The concern about incomplete details and welds not being detailed properly on pipe support drawings is valid; however, there is no safety implication as the actual installations have been verified to be adequate for the intended applications.
b 8
1010d - 10/20/06
. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER: 222.3 (8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 110F 12 APPENDIX A
- 5. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT:
- a. NSRS Investigation Report No. 1-85-473 NPS,
Subject:
Configuration Control at SQN, 8FN and OE, (03/07/86)
- b. 7VA Memo from M. M. McGuire to H. L. Abercrombie,
Subject:
Program Plan for Conversion to Configuration Control Drawings,(01/08/86) .
- c. 7VA Pipe Support Manual for SQN, Volume 2, 3 and 4, Rev. O, (04/22/83) -
- d. Detailed Design Criteria SQN-DC-V-24.1, Rev. O, (06/23/86),
" Location and Design of Piping Supports and Supplemental Steel in Category I Structures"
- e. Detailed Design Criteria SQN-DC-V-2.14, Rev. O, (06/30/86),
" Piping System Anchors Installed in Category I Structures"
- f. Pipe Support Drawings 1-MSH-77(H1-17)/R2 2-CCH-372(2-H10-372)/R2 1-MSH-130(H1-77,78)/R1 2-CCH-374(2-H10-374)/R1 1-MSH-165(H1-120)/R4 1-CSH-44(1-H21-44)/R904 1-MSH-300(1-H1-300)/R905 2-CSH-14(2-H21-14)/R906 1-MSH-301(1-H1-301)/R906 2-CSH-15(2-H21-15)/R905 1-MSH-357(1-H1-357)/R905 1-FPCH-505(H50-505)/R901 1-MSH-503(H1-503)/R4 1-FPCH-527(H50-527)/R2 1-AFDH270A(H3-280A)/R5 1-RCH-134(1-H36-134)/R905 1-AF0H-369(H3-424)/R906 1-RCH-136(1-H36-136)/R4 l 1-FDH-45(H4-43)/R1 1-RCH-138(1-H36-138)/R1 l 1-FDH-201(1-H4-201)/R1 2-RCH-242(2-H36-242)/R903 l 2-UHIH-144(2-H45-144)/R02 1-SIH-365(1-SIH-365)/R2 2-UHIH-145( 2-H45-145)/R905 1-CH-78(H6-78)/R2 2-SG8H-70(2-H47-70)/R1 2-CVCH-614(2-H34-614)/R904 2-SG8H-72(2-H47-72)/R1 2-CVCH-615(2-H34-615)/R4 )
2-H10-352(2-H10-352)/R1 2-CVCH-806(2-H34-806)/R902 2-CCH-367(2-H10-367)/R1 2-CVCH-813(2-H34-813)/R0
- g. Nuclear Performance Plan (NPP), final draft of Volume II, Rev. 1, (07/14/86)
- h. Excerpts from program plan that relates to the drawing conversion process, (7/21/86) 1010d - 10/20/86
~
. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 222.3 (B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 i
'PAGE 12 0F 12 APPENNX A (cont'd)
- 1. TVA Welding Project Review Plan J. Memo f rom Rb'G. Domer to H. L. Acercroable, Subject " Welding Project-Sequoyah Update" (02/10/86) .
- k. NRClitNrtoTVA,decketNos. 50-327 & 50-328 (08/25/86)
- 1. NRC Report No.'502 327, 328/86-33, docket Nqs. 50-327 and 50-328 (03/25/86) t f m.' As-bujlt informtion for missing welds (10/09/86)
\ .
- 6. NHAT kI.GULAT' IONS.11 CENSING COMMITMENTS. DESIGN REQUIRE OTHER APPLY OR C0;lTRQL IN CHIS AREA?
- a. TVAP,ipe\' 59pport Manual for SQN, Volums' 2, 3 and 4 Rev. O, (04/22/83)
, u \
,b. 1 Detailed Design Criteria SON-DC-V-24.1, 43v. O, " Location and
, Design of Piping Supports and Supplement'al-Steel in Category i Structures" (06/23/86)
\'
- c. Detailed Dre.*.it n Criteria SQN-DC-V-2.14i Rev. O. " Piping System Anch es Insteiled in Category T Structures" (06/30/86)
(
- 7. LIST REQUESTS FOR IN76}.fTION. f M ETINGS. TEl10$lNE CALLS. AND OTHER i
DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELD 4ENT- 3 ,
- a. RFI #SQN-515 (08/24/85)' ,
- b. RFI #5QN-579,'(99/22/86)' [
- c. RFI #SQN-614, (10/03/e6) '
\
i r
- d. RFI #SQN-628, (10/09/86) i
'c i ,
RFI #5QN-634, (10/15/86) e.
f '1VA Transmittal No. 126 (10/06/i'6) 9 Telecon between Sandra Cook,'lV4, and K. Jandu, BechteL '
10M #304, (10/08/86) 1010d - 10/20/l;6 ,!
V ,
I J. - . - - - - - - _ . . . _ .
,e,..,.. w. g.. ,...
. .m
.q, , .g ,m, m . ,,..
,,p .c
. , t yt ;y w .4 :gw; 4< , .,
t .
. : a
. ; ..oc .
,3 ' e gs. ~ 4e 3 %;- [' *q.;q .4. c i4 N p ,y.g[, W' f 4't . -. M 4.,", v; ,
a yt . Q" %,
.. !n 4 , ,.3 ; ..* ., v ,.
i.
, . *. ~y w.: wh . , p '. ? -n m,, p h,yp ..q..Q p. JM ,, Q: p,y ., r.y,* g'j e ;
,' q ;. ~ts,.. ,
t ,
4, i < ~ 4 4, +, , y ,,
- ? '
- jty,',[f f c 'DT p ," p M'qi g + - ,
! .11' R * ' ..41 J tygg i; 1;' n '
j; .
M f: Q,-(% G . '.[%I c
g aQl
- , J.y.kf 2g M .,k;T.% ;f 7,ieECTG '
[? '/ aC.3. ",
y v *.
e3 p q :., -
ANIM$W' '6 . ,$g/YkfMPage'1:of 1.l 2.-ision A. .' . .,o ,'-
. ' ' ' .N U U:,d) w.' z.; j , .M,4g ,p .y.6;p.%. 'c , n. : g pp.y yd p M,.'Mu tev.
t-y ; . ,: ,, . me s .o- "q n.,i s w
t I L. n .t , s. o 2
m 0 I. p.p/id ECSP CORRECTIVE,,to
..m,p m.g i , gg F y t.F
. i d ,i'. 'y?
4.o .p . y ,
t
,3
%~ %g .'; , ~ . . . ,- s , > :' %
l' y p, .N In :]4 5 /hiG %^ Q M,,4 ;J]fbyy L Sb[kyAction glD][M;ef Tractint M'M Documenth IM'.kj".. Y.Q ;r ' I', ' '
,6j- / , , . F
,D, , e p.u. . 1 o, .r m
-1m.a s.; 1 7.n . f w49 .. .%e %
- t. u 4 .y du.-
- y .1 m3 ,4 .-
'n ,,' 4. s j ,
p.; -;
.+ 4 - .m,g W. t,c.O: M' r #:n'w%-w%it w LJka 1 .
ndFP OttitL vf7 3 . q ., '. 'c
' '%nJm,' ~q'+ ".. -' .'i ' '-'Drt p
r Q,.j[3*JINITIATION g
3 , d,y .W r.+(
wa s e ' ' ' < g'q,gy g: g fp v.W wg v w , '! 1 3 ;,- .y j
I
,3.
Mr. L*
,3
- 1. Isusediate Corrective Action Required:mO AYesy MNoy,
- y* '
< 6,, . <
[ .' , I 5 ;. 2. Stop Wort Reconumended: PO t j:i',. d
- 3. CAID No. 222. 03 Sad of 'gYes 4. 7m INITIATIONK [No MMWN DATE ' MS" lo ' M '
I
,i, 5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: hus D'"* " W ' *
. 'e ;r[*I'
'.Y<.t * * ' - " " " ~
}; 9?, ' 1., ? 6. PROBLEN DESCRIPTION:,.O QRJ Q NQR -
.s!
, 7 vr *
< .'.. %Q u pser somrY ' .sneA w ru a ~unds unessw henr1 'N
$I 'Y5- .
taw M At urfL b *" ta ff ,. T1W ^ G Te ' 'Aub 'wsLAt Asf i ' .
i
- ?.
s, . ? g' '
u Mnf A RIA W ' nNA1L C A APnDCfL 4' 4
- v. ~.
( y
,. S, . ,
1 7, * . .
i .
n;
< I 9
_{. . ..e- - .. - -. , aq { p,3{g,; p
< m .. . .e - ,,< ,,3'
.- j', ata t
.g ,, ( +;3, .'j .i
. u , e -- - . . , . , . , , .
- 'f. ,.I) I p g .
n.(' q .'; e b
"" - /, J / . L, " * // " ' ' ' O ATTACHMENTS tr , . ./ C'Q '
8{ a J'- ,C "
4
- 7. PREPARED BY: NAME RCT/ ' FTWh ~ MO '~m C&TE: . se A(. aU Wik',O
. .i e .' t I ) i 8. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H H C " Y % . E% th.V' " : DI.TE : 10 2rtL M A;P'iE .
, M,a 9. APPROVAL: ECTG PROGRAM MGR.? ~ 6 ' ^ * * "'" ""' " ~' D ATE : L ! a '-* '? C .
- t a b, ' .& <~ n W.e.sn e,u m w . ,..n-,, d.
g i .. WV'qi V
'"n %Q,,.W.;F q4 eo, 9",s ' M b, u ,y,fn : gg . ,t . epb
- G
'hI
- '*']p,Q gh p%[; 'j u
,j(
Nil ib -
I M V >
,' l I, , . ' % 2 . a m
b{Ji.CORRECTIVEACTION y ,
- 10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVE' , u. , ACTION P.LAN:
- h
i' ' *
,. s , , , , , ,' !. L. . ,
i
.- , .~ , 1 4: ,g' g
'1
't . - ( , +
1 e
s , s .o . . 2 s . ~,. .
. ,,; \ \ ,H i
+ . 4
, ,,1 4 e , aw. .g s .m., . ,.,.,,,.t 7 s 's .
. .s ! t J,5 j ,n 4 . ~ , -
'r
- r
, ' .~ ...t 1
,,e , rs q- I
- t hvf* e .
(E i I , g,
'E g ,
., s. .
" -m . ne , , , . .
.c 1. ,p , q ., f , ,
. - <. :g w . , mq - -
qegr ,q
. ; t -,
. ,y,
}
w:
e 1: - - - ., +,..
,3 ., ;, . ,
q i
ma g' ,
",,n,, . re.
a #-
v
,1 n!
- m. ,s,,
. . . . . , _.-.~...m.
,, Q, : p I
- ~ " " " '
" " " O ATTACHMENTS [f
. k ~ ^ ;- Li
- b'.!
9,J MJ f 11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /MGR:. . DA';.'E :
j l '
3
' " """ ~DATE: , i. j i ! i ., - 0, [ ' ' .) ~'
- 12. CONCURRENCE: CEG ,H: W "
- SRP:6y" ~"~
M. ,s m
- U C, .,;4. )
'"~'*" " i DATE :
!, . _ f, ,
"W L' ,
'" ~ ". 1,DATE:
4 J' :ECTG PROGRAM.MGR: h n c .
W.
. . ' 5 'f.q I:','i M itVERIFICATION . ,.yt%QQ fW:; , AND CLO 1
m.3 y+n '. - Qm f y-[&+ ]s T. ., . ..
- S- Q c;J p 3 -lg
, v - AQ . g m.J : ,e -
c 7,> g i
q m t , -. .
Approved corrective [ actions have been < verified asisatisfactorily - .in k , - P J.i.7 J 13. .
il "l,i '
implemented. . #W ,
- dWG@iN M c i, ' .-
.c
%. j
- +' ' ,~' s<;
..+we.,--%o, , t%p . m[ ', : > , v .g.
d.w,,J.
' 'n,:. ,@L. n ,m,,.,i . ,.gM,t
. . ..a e y ,.
yMW, .;- ,
,, ,l
, . .. , o' *. ,
- t ;, . , SIGAATURE 2 WfG t J' c TITLE - f, .;. 'DATE- .W.s ; ;
'a ; '
JM ,0% -, i ' ' n, A. ~ w G '$nWy.W.;g.q' i
tR ~,.? ' 5 )'
y;p,qy;p
.t ,
l m
,v c m: .s W c c. v.6 g,
' q:x
- J, 3 i sp; ,1, ' +L '
', ; s, . . '- ,
3 .44 A e . g., , -
- .S,,,R. e ., >
l <
4.,
.y....,
t .e .* a:M,.
M Wu.r os d(g . ,
r
..a'
@r.g.w..w;*); :wm (3.,,Q4Pv / ., .-
rj ~
fp A.q M.,v M.,J.-
i
~ <
..v v-l9 ; :q M 's d
~, e*k k,
t.cr 1 '>^
u.L . d~ .w, y'**. > ,
- ,v' 1: ,- ' '
.. o e .p. pW,d.::q . .a - f.p a htb '. N,mta? a.H' 'h $ t n. i I i -
t t
- t i
1 v .. > 6 . t. ;w5 f, .
_ 4>
l +, d. - i ,1
') wp<4_ q tu=g:
e j '. >4 %g e :* .
4 _s
>f 6 ve s
- ; 'J ,. .[ 4
$ . q .. ' ' . 3, . .$-.!; .., . ,1; e .-
.m# "u. y a. +*t* a l
,t' '
y, = ) ;, ' * .., ty y
-%r W ', ei s_. e mt;4_h R
. u .f, 1
i
, '_ t y . .-
,j,