ML20083H192

First Interim Deficiency Rept Re Transamerica Delaval,Inc QA Program.Initially Reported on 831206.Final Configuration for Control Cabinet Indicates Drawing Revs K,L & M Not Incorporated.Also Reportable Per Part 21

ML20083H192
Person / Time
Site:	Bellefonte, 05000000, Hartsville
Issue date:	01/05/1984
From:	Mills L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
REF-PT21-84 NUDOCS 8401130053
Download: ML20083H192 (2)

Text

-__ -. .

s

' ~$ EU, g 4. v TENNESSEE: VALLEY; AUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA TENN'ES$1EE 37401 400 Chcotnut Street Tower II M Jlf! 10 gotlaMS,1984

.BLRD-50-438/83-64, HTRD-50-518/83-08 BLRD-50-439/83-58 HT3D-50-520/83-08 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

Region II Attn: Mr.' James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

BELLEFONTE AND HARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLANTS UNITS 1 AND 2 - TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL QA PROGEAM DEFICIENCIES - BLRD-50-438/83-64, BLRD-50-439/83-58,.

ElRD-50-518/83-08, HTRD-50-520/83 FIRST INTERIM REPORT i

The subject deficiency was initially reported to NRC-OIE Inspector Linda Watson on December 6,1983 in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) as NCR QDBVA-84-18 Deficiencies 1, 3, and 6. Enclosed is our first interim repor t. We expect to submit our next report by August 24, 1984. We consider 10 CFR Part 21 applicable to this deficiency.

TVA has electea to defer construction activities on Hartsville. Deferral 1

does-not mean that the project will be cancelled but that TVA is minimizing its expenditures and construction efforts until such time that TVA has sufficient information-to indicate whether the project should be completed or cancelled. ThereI* ore, we will not be submitting further information on Hartsville until a final decision is made regarding this project.

If you have any questions, please get in touch with R. H. Shell at FTS 858-2688.

Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 8401130053 84010S i PDR ADOCK 05000438 - -

.S PDR L. M. Mills,iManager Nuclear Licensing Enclosure cc: Mr. Richard C. Deloung, Director (Enclosure)

Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Records Center (Enclosure)

Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 1100 Circle 75 Parkway, Suite 1500 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 OFFICIAL rnW

.1 b b i

1983-TVA SOTH ANNIVERSARY ) )

An Equal Opportunity Employer g j

' ~ -

1 55 Gi 3E JE mg

, ENCLOSURE JE l' '

i!

BELLEFONTE AND HARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLANTS 'JNITS 1 AND 2 d!

TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL QA PROGRAM DEFICIENCIES ]l BLRD-50-438/83-64, BLRD-50-439/83-58  ;=

HTRD-50-518/83-08, HTRD-50-520/83-08 .-l NCR QDBVA-84-18 DEFICIENCIES 1, 3, AND 6 .

l 10 CFR 50.55(e) i i FIRST INTERIM REPORT  :

Description of Deficiency j' o

During a TVA vendor audit ~(QDBVA-84-18) of Transamerica Delaval, I

"i?

Incorporated (TDI), Oakland, California, several deficiencier were noted which indicate noncompliance with their own quality assurance fj program. TDI supplies emergency diesel generators to TVA and their j quality assurance program had previously been accepted by TVA. A }

description of the deficiencies that were found during the audit j]

follows.

2 In the area of design control there exists a lack of a configuration b j;

control program which defines the actual configuration of each control .

panel for the TDI generators. No design baseline exists for the panels. j Control cabinet 77024 (job No. 80043) was inspected / tested between 3 July 27 and August 30, 1981, with final acceptance testing being E accomplished on September 2, 1981. Drawing set 09-500-77024, sheets 3 1-11, reviaion J, was used during these inspections and tests. @

^*

Further, revisions K and L were mandatory changes which were required jj to be made to all the panels, and revision M should have been g incorporated to ensure that all panels were the same. No objective >

evidence was available in engineering, inventory control, or the pa-i. E shop to idettify the actual configuation of panels manufactured with -1 this order. Inventory control records indicate the parts list used T with this order was last revised on September 3,1981, (revision 22) j and that subsequent revisions (23,24, and 25) were not incorporated on --

3 ,. this order. Further, both engineering and inventory records on the d 7.iQq transmittal of the changes have been destroyed in accordance with 4 p y,:p Delaval procedures. Two different types of change notices are used j Xr (drawing change notices for drawings and engineering memorandums for f; 4(:' y g the parts list) neither of which cross references the other. Changes sf . 7 which are not incorporated before shipment are to be incorporated by 3 y

gg the engineering service departmaat. The engineering service i yeg}.T,g department does not receive engineering changes but 13 sent 2 h ~, c i .

memorandums from design engineering. These memorandums also do not j reference the daange documents. There was no documentation in the i service department to indicate that all the changes to be incorporated "

by revisions K and L were accomplished. The only evidence available j on final configuration is the test records which indicate that a revisions K, L, and M were not incorporated.

]

t 45 9

z N

a E

=

a

In th] cren of tar.t control, . Test Procedure 1A-6803 for tasting of tho -

reflCsh board cas;mbly doea not requira any tast data to be recorded, '

I no listing of instruments used, and no evaluation of the test results.

Final acceptance test procedure 77024-500 also does not require test data to be recorded, a listing of instruments used, and an evaluation of test results. Further, completed procedure for the test of unit 77034 indicated that some test items (2 and 4B) had not been signed off as being completed.

No objective evidence was available for review that personnel performing panel tests are qualified.

' Also noted was a failure to ensure that seismic requirements of the contracts have been fully implemented in that:

1. No objective evidence was available - for review that indicated changes to the seismically qualified control panel had been reviewed for impact on the qualification test results.

2. The control panels themselves are not considered to be safety related by Delaval, and therefore, appropriate quality assurance requirements relating to the panels' manufaciusv (i.e.,

structural) had not been imposed on their subcontractor.

Interim Progress The TVA audit team prepared deviation reports which were discussed with Transamerica Delaval personnel at the postaudit conference. A preliminary copy of each deviation was given to Transamerica Delaval quality assurance personnel at this meeting with the official copy being transmitted with the formal report. Transamerica Delaval was requested to respond with their proposed correctiva action.

e

. . . . . .. . _ __ _ . _