ML20137U877
| ML20137U877 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/25/1985 |
| From: | Martin L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | William Cahill GULF STATES UTILITIES CO. |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900334 NUDOCS 8512090415 | |
| Download: ML20137U877 (1) | |
Text
..
v' w
NOV 2 51985 v'
9
~
In Reply Refer To:
Docket:
50-458 Gulf States Utilities ATTN: William J. Cahill, Jr.
Senior Vice President River Bend huclear Group P. O. Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Gentlemen:
This forwards a copy of NRC Inspection Report 99900334/85-01 for your information. The attached report documents an inspection completed by the Vendor Inspection Branch of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
Sincerely, "0M,! Dgned By:
L. L MART!f4" L. E. Martin, Acting Chief Reactor Projects Branch
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
Gulf States Utilities ATTN:
J. E. Booker, Manager-Engineering, Nuclear Fuels & Licensing P. O. Box 2951 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Louisiana State University, Government Documents Department Louisiana Radiation Control Program Director bec distrib. by RIV:
RPB f
Resident Inspector R&SPD[hatin,RA SectionChief(RPB/A)
R. D.
L RIV. File, lh RIV:F(PB/A RPB -
JPJaudon/lk LEt tin
\\\\ql/85
///p/85 0.
8512090415 051125 40' PDR OA999 ENVTRANA jj 99900334 PDR
/y g
~
8~
o
~g UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON. O. C. 20555 S
October 28, 1985 Docket No. 99900334/85-01 Transamerica Delaval, Incorporated NOV - 7 E
- i Engine and Compressor Division ATTN: Mr. C. S. Mathews
)
Y Vice President and General Manager l
550 85th Avenue Oakland, California 94261 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. E. H. Trottier of this office on June 3-7, 1985, of your facility at Oakland, California, and to the discussion of our findings with you and members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Th'is inspection was perfonned to review the manner in which defects and noncon-formances are evaluated and reported as required by 10 CFR Part 21. This inspection also reviewed all corrective and preventive actions taken by TDI as-a result of violations and nonconfonnances identified.in three inspections conducted in 1983.
Areas examined during-the inipection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed report.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of an examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
Transamerica Delaval was found to have an improved Part 21 program. Areas that could be improved further are: added detail in administrative procedures and improved documentation of Part 21 review and evaluation activities. Of the corrective and preventive actions associated with the 31 violations and nonconformances identified in previous inspections, one nonconfonnance remains unresolved, while another remains an open item.
~
During the inspection it was found that certain manufacturing operations were perfonned without verifying that previous operations were satisfactorily completed.
This is not in conformance with your route sheet control procedure.
The specific finding and references to the pertinent requirements are identified in the enclosure to this letter.
Please provide us within 30 days from the date of this letter, a written statement containing:
(1) a description of steps that have been or will be taken to correct this item; (2) e descri be taken to prevent recurrence; and (3) ption of steps that have been or will the dates your corrective action and preventive measures were or will be com extending your response time for cause.pleted.
(Consideration may be given to
)
l i
M i i A me-2 cr - 1, r > v.
l
\\
Transamerica Delaval, Incorporated Engine and Compressor Division 2-October 28, 1985 The responses requested by this letter are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, '
Gary. Zech, Chief Vendor Program Branch Division of Quality Assurance, Vendor, and Technical Training Center Programs Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
1.
Appendix A-Notice of Nonconformance (85-01) 2.
Appendix B-Inspection Report No. 99900334/85 '
~
3.
Appendix C-Inspection Data-fMest's' (9 pages)
.i 1
6 99 P
5 t
6 j
4
APPENDIX A Transamerica Delaval, Incorporated Engine and Compressor Division j
Docket No. 99900334/85-01 i
NOTICE OF NONCONFORMANCE 9
Based on the results of the NRC inspection conducted on June 3-7, 1985 it i
appiears that certain of your activities were not conducted in accordance with i
i NRC requirements.
Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 states: " Activities affecting j
quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or i
drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished
,l i
in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include appropriate quantitative or qualitative
, acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished."
Section 2.4.1 of the TDI In Process Inspection Manual, dated 5/1/85 reads, in
- part, "The area inspector will dimensionally and.xisually inspect the results
}
of the current manufacturing.eperation in' relation to previous and subsequent
{
l operations as outlined on the routing sheet using the drawings and other specifications as his criteria.
i If the part.is acceptable at this operation.
[
the inspector will stamp or initial and date the Production Routing Sheet, j
Form P-1358, in the space provided."
i I
Contrary to the above, operation #95, " Layout and side tap holes," for Part
by a QC inspector to show acceptance of this o i
operations (i.e., #100, drill and tap flanges;peration. However, subsequent store) were stamped, signed and dated by various inspectors.#110,deburr(completi In addition, final inspection and acceptance was properly stamped, signed and dated by a
}
QC Inspector.
t i
f i
t i
)
i f
i f
i l
i a
- #h I PJ [
i Q,,,,
l
_,3 inv7io,~
f t
1
.___.,_,-_._-a.,
I ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION
=
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPO.R.T......
INSPECTION INSPECTION i
NO.: 99900334/85-01 DATE(S): June 3-7, 1985 ON-SITE HOURS:
55 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Transamrica Delaval, Incorporated Engine and Compressor Division ATTN: Mr. C. S. Mathews, Vice President and General Manager 550 85th Avenue Oakland, California 94261 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Mr. B. Guntrum, Manager, Quality Assurance (415) 577-7422 PRINCIPAL PRODUCT: Diesel Engines NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: With the exception of an occasional replacement part or service, no current domestic nuclear industry activity.
b-
~
s ASSTGNED INSPECTOR: hm ffgag dF E.H.TrJoier, Reac,tive Inspection Section (RIS)
Date OTHERINSPECTOR(S):
J. C. Higgins, Nuclear Engineer Brookhaven National Laboratory APPROVED BY:
b/4~Ar -
S~
E. W. Merschoff, Chief, TIS Datfe INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A.
BASES:
10 CFR 50 Appendix B and 10 CFR Part 21.
B.
SCOPE:
Iiy TDI on previous inspection findings.This inspection was perform The specific area of concern that gave rise to this inspection relates to the mann4r in which.
TDI reports defects and noncompliances as required by 10 CFR Part 21.
4 PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: Bellefonte 1/2, 50-438, 439; Catawba 1/2, J.
50-413, 414; Comanche Peak 1/2, 50-445, 446; Grand Gulf 1/2, 50-416, 417; Perry 1/2, 5.0-440,441; i
50-206; Shearon Harris, 50-400; Shoreham, 50-322; VogtleRancho Sec
{
1/2,50-424.425.
l n c.,,
_. p o n, o
,,.sv 1
l
1 ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION 0AKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO. : "99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 2 of 24 A.
. INSPECTION ISSUES The issues that resulted in this inspection were:
(1) verifying satisfactory corrective and preventive actions for the 29 nonconformances and two violations resulting from three inspections of Transamerica Delaval Inc. conducted in 1983, and (2) verifying that Transamerica Delaval, Inc.
has established and implemented an effective 10 CFR Part 21 program.
B.
INSPECTION FINDINGS 4
1.
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, Section 10.4.1 of the Quality Assurance Manual and Section 2.4.1 of In-1 i
process Inspection Manual I.P. 300, a production route sheet was
{
neither stamped nor initia11ed by a quality inspector to indicate acceptance of a production operation.
l 2.
Transamerica Delaval, Inc. has established a 10 CFR Part 21 program i
that is, with few exceptions, effectively implemented. Areas in l
need of improvement are:
the Part 21 administrative procedures, and i
. records of review and.. evaluation activities tohductid in support of l
the Part 21 program.
3.
Corrective actions and measures to prevent recurrence for the 31 violations and nonconformances identified in previous inspections were, with the following exceptions, verified satisfactory:
3 l
Inspection 83-03: Nonconformance A remains unresolved, and Nonconformance E remains an open item.
C.
BACKGROUND i
~'
I t
Inspection topics for review within TDI's overall Part 21 program i
included:
required posting of Part 21 and related documents; the TDI procedure for establishing and administering Part 21 issues; procurement and subvendor control; and records related to Part 21 items. A discussion i
t of the results of the review of TDI's Part 21 program is found in Section i
F, Other Findings or Comments.
l The general area of interest for this inspection was a review of the l
corrective and preventive measures implemented as a result of previous I
inspection findings. Transamerica Delaval. Inc., has been visited by.
t NRC inspectors six times since 1979, with three inspections occurring l
within four months in 1983(83-01 in July, 83-02 in September and 83-03 t
i inOctober). The series of inspections conducted in 1983 resulted in 2 i
t I
i I
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.:' 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 3 of 24 violations and 29 nonconformances. This inspection addressed each of the 31 items of violation and nonconformance arising from the 1983 Vendor Program Branch inspections of Transamerica Delaval, Inc. The results are contained in Section F, Status of Previous Inspection Findings.
D.
UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
Unresolved' items are matters about which more information is required.
The unresolved item arising from this inspection was initially identified as Nonconformance A, Inspection 83-03.
As discussed below, corrective and preventive actions were insufficiently comprehensive to allow fully satisfactory resolution.
1.
Nonconformance A (Unresolved) Inspection 83-03:
TDI procurement specification for electrical control cables required only commercial grade cable, and did not require conformance to IEEE standards that require class IE cable be used on emergency diesel generators.
As a result of the No~f commercial grade cable vice Class IE cable on their diesel generators, a TDI Service Information Memo (#361 Rev.1, dated 10/13/83) and a 10 CFR 21 Report (dated 9/27/83) were issued to notify the NRC and all affected customers.
By way of corrective action TDI has changed its parts list and purchased material specification to specify Class 1E cable.
An internal QA audit was performed in April,1984 to address the generic aspects of design control errors.
iiith the exception of this application of Class 1E cable, no other design control discrepancies were identified..
as a result of that audit.
The following paragraph substantiates insufficient corrective action taken to correct this nonconformanc in its entirety.
The multi-ccaductor, commercial grade cable running from the engine terminal box to the lioodward governor actuator was previously rated for 75* C.
Because the cable runs so close to the engine, it was i
determined that the cable would exceed this rating if diesel room ambient temperature rose above 98.5* F (37' C). "he new Class 1E cable is rated at 90' C.
predict that this ratin A straight line extrapolation would ture rises above 125.5*g would be exceeded if room ambient tempera-F (52' C). At least one nuclear power plant diesel room requires equipment be rated to withstand 130*F (ambient) l due to ventilation system capacity.
Thus, the new Class IE cable
~
temperature rating will be exceeded under that circumstance. Further review, analysis, testing or modification of this cable by TDI is appropriate.
e
-_,_,-_,,-,,-,----m.~,
.....,_-,-.m.,-
,,.-,-w
~~
~ _,, -. _ _
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL. INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION j
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 4 of 24 E.
10 CFR PART 21 REVIEW i
The TDI Program for reporting defects and noncompliances in accordance I
with 10 CFR Part 21 was reviewed including:
the Part 21 procedure.
posting of required documents and records related to Part 21 activities.
Various persons were interviewed regarding their role and responsibility with respect to the identification of defects for reporting under Part 21.
Overall. TDI appears to be conscientiously reviewing failures and defects for reportability under Part 21. Areas warranting improvement are discussed below:
a.
Posting i
Both Part 21 and Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act were procedure was not posted. TDI corrected this by posting their prominently posted throughout the facility. However, the TDI Part 21 j
i procedure during the week of the inspection.
j b.
Procedure The TDI procedure destirittiAg thei P' art 21 process is titled " Division 10 CFR 21 Policy." revision dated 5/31/85. The inspector reviewed both the current and previous revision (dated 1/26/81) of the Part 21 procedure.
t Defects or failures in TDI equipment are identified through a number of means including: verbal and written reports from field service.
i representatives, warranty service orders, returned material reports.
l and QC inspection reports.
Items identified from these or other l
sources that are potentially reportable under Part 21 are evaluated l
by TDI, primarily via the Delivered Product Quality (DPQ) Comunittee.
i The TDI Part 21 procedure is quite general and does not discuss specific responsibility for review of the various source reports for possible escalation into the Part 21 review system. Likewise, there are no detatis in specific implementing procedures for those source reports that discuss responsibility for consideration of Part 21 in their review.
Several recent TDI purchase orders for nuclear parts were reviewed.
It was noted that while TDI imposed Part 21 on its subvendors. TDI was unable to produce a purchasing procedure or policy that mandated this practice.
i S
e
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION 0AKLAND. CALI:0RNIA REPORT 9
INSPECTION
'9900334/85-01 RESULTS:
NO.:
FAGE 5 of 24 Records maintained by TDI to assure compliance with Part 21 were marginal, particularly for items that were potentially reportable, but were evaluated by TDI and detemined to be not reportable.
The TDI Part 21 procedure provided no detail or guidance on the evaluation records to be kept in this situation.
c.
Review of Part 21 Files
=
Selected items from TDI Part 21 files were reviewed, including i
failures that were ultimately determined reportable, as well as those that were determined to be not significant enough for reportability.
Additionally, significant failures and defects were selected from other TDI data systems and from non-TDI data banks. These were pursued and the inspector verified that they had been appropriately entered into the TDI Part 21 system for review and evaluation.
TDI items determined reportable are numbered sequentially, beginning with 101.
Since beginning their Part 21 reporting program in 1978, TDI has reported 430 items.
date in 1985 were reviewed as foliows:The files of_the four items reported to
~
l i
Item 127: Air Filter, Control Panel Failure Item 128: Starting Air Check Valve Failure Item 129: Crankshaft Oil Plug Sizing Item 130: Generator Control Panel Overheating These files were reviewed for proper Part 21 evaluation, correct documentation, notification of affected plants, timeliness of reporting, and proper items included in the reports. No discrep-ancies were identified.
l Records for items not reported under Part 21 were also reviewed.
In general, records oT7ailures that were originally considered l
reportable, then by later evaluation detemined to be not reportable, were marginal.
The Part 21 procedure did not address the evaluation.
format.
Thus, the record of an evaluation was often a set of hand-written notes not always dated 'and signed.
Despite the lack of good records, TDI did appear to be performing appropriate reviews of these items.
Particularly noteworthy were the weekly inputs from each field service representative and the Warranty Service Orders that were reviewed for potentially reportable items.
1 i
t e
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.:- 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 6 of 24 One item was identified that may deserve further attention. This concerned a Georgia Power Co. (Plant Vogtle) control system deft-ciency that prevented the EDGs from automatical!y restarting within 90 seconds of a shutdown.
On 1/29/85, TDI determined this to be not reportable, without good reason and despite a customer letter identifying it as a serious discrepancy and requesting a modification to correct it. During the course of this inspection. TDI agreed to reevaluate this item.
In a telephone discussion of this item subsequent to the inspection, TDI informed the inspector that they had reviewed the matter and tound plant Vogtle to be the only nuclear plant that had this 90 second " lockout." The TDI Engineering Department (Controls Group) has since redesigned this logic circuit and issued new drawings that remove this " lockout" feature.
F.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM REVIEW Both 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V and ANSI N45.2 Section 6, which '
TDI is committed to follow, call for. activities iffedtiWg quality to be prescribed' by appropriattrin~structions, procedures, and drawings.
It was noted that the recently revised TDI Quality Assurance Program Manual, Section 5. " Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings " was weakly worded in that it only described manufacturing and engineering type documents.
Further~ review of TDI programs and program controls revealed a general lack of procedural coverage in certain areas (e.g., Quality Assurance, Repair, and Parts Activities).
Specifically, there did not appear to be controlled and approved procedures for the following activities:
Completion of QC Inspection Reports i;
Processing of Warranty Service Orders for failed items on EDGs in the field Processing of material and parts returned from the field for repair on Returned Material Request (RMR) forms TheQACorrectiveActionRequest(CAR) Program.
1 Review of the audit of TDI performed in 1984 by the Management Assistance Corporation (MAC) revealed a similar finding, as follows:
" Instructions Procedures, and Drawings in QAM Section 5.0 should cover the broad scope of documents intended by this section of ANSI M45.2 and not just drawings and manufacturing process related documents."
t i
~
,vn-,
,-,m -w
--r, m,-,..,-,,,n,n,-,,~n-w,--,r~n,n-mm,-,r,.-----.,,,,,,,-.-
-. e n nn
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION' 0AKIAND. CALI 0RNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: '99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 7 of 24 G.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
1.
Inspection 83-01 (July 11-15, 1983) a.
Violation 1 (Closed): Transamerica Delaval, Inc. (TDI) had failed to issue a 10 CFR Part 21 report concerning a jacket water pump failure at Shoreham Nucidar Power Station that occurred on October 11, 1982.
Following the failure TDI conducted (and documented) a review of the circumstances surrounding the incident. Based on this review TDI concluded (erroneously) that the failure was not reportable under the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 because the pump assembly was unique to Shoreham.
(The inspector reviewed the documentation attendant to this Part 21 review).
i TOI corrected this violation by is' suing the required Part 21 report on July 20, 1983.
As preventive ~aEtTon,"TDI commiitted to reexamine its Part 21 i
reporting philosophy and initiate administrative changes to ensure future problems similar to this will be reported.
b.
Violation 2 (Closed): TDI had failed to issue a 10 CFR Part 21 report concerning fuel injection line leaks at Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
Following the failure, TDI conducted a review of the circum-i stances and determined (erroneously) that since only Shoreham had experienced fuel injection line leaks, the problem was not in the tubing material supplied and thus was not reportable under 10 CFR Part 21.
However, subsequent to Vendor t
Program Branch Inspection 83-01. TDI issued a Part 21 notification and identified two other nuclear sites that had received fuel injection line tubing from the same batch as
- i Shoreham. TDI also recommended an inspection program to deter-mine if additional fuel injection line failures were inuiinent.
This recommendation resulted in Shoreham replacing 100% of the fuel injection lines on their engines. The remaining nuclear i
1 i
sites have experienced no failures of fuel injection line tubing to date.
i i
t I
l r
,-_._,,_._.,..,-,_,_...-_,__.-,,,,,m-._---,._---,-_.,,_m._,..__
=_,.._,
ORGAN 8ZATf0N:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVfSION 0AKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION a
NO.r 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 8 of 24 Preventive action was taken in conjunction with Nonconfonnance A, Inspection 83-01, below: additional inspection and material tests performed on material received; training conducted and documented.on.QA Manual requirements for receipt inspections; additional emphasis in this area on the next QA internal
~
audit.
c.
Nonconformance A (Closed): Material (fuel injection line tubing) accepted without required mill test reports having been received or a nonconfonnance being issued.
TDI's corrective action cosmitment for this finding consisted of inspecting the subject fuel injection line tubing..which was received under vendor P. O. #45333.. The inspector reviewed the nondestructive examination records of. the tests performed 4
on this tubing. The tests consisted of a 13 part metallurgical i
laboratory report and a magnetic particle test report. As a preventive measura, a new production routing sheet was developed i
that requires all tubing to undergo hardness, Magnaflux and metallurgical tests (by TDI Procedure NDE-600.30) upon receipt.
The inspector ^refiewed the following tubing purchase orders and l
Verified that the tests were documented as being perfonned:
l J
l TU8ING P.O. Number P.O. DATE i
17558 5/2/84 55571 10/21/83 17873 5/22/84 18700 8/9/84 18947 8/30/84 19667 10/29/84 l
18479 7/16/84
~
Additional preventive action comunitted to by TDI and reviewed by the inspector included a letter from the QA Manager to the Quality Control-Supervisor requiring documented training of receiving inspectors (dated November 4, 1983); the record of l
such training conducted (December 12,1983); and the' Audit Report of January 23, 1984, in which this area was a subject i
of the audit.
l d.
Nonconformance B (Closed): Layout drawings for a redesign of I
the jacket water pump not properly drawn, nor signed aad dated.
t i
f i
t
(
l
-__,,..,...r
.-.,+-._,.,_,,_-_..,r---._,..-_,_,,,__.m
. ~, -
m--
T ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA t
REPORT INSPECTION NO. : "99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 9 of 24 The inspector reviewed TDI's corrective action commitment and found that Enterprise Standard (Fom E 114) " Drawing Room Practice,"Section II.A. Layouts, was revised 11/8/83 and now reads, " Marked prints may be used in lieu of a layout for minor redesign if the intent of the design can be clearly conveyed."
Training records were also reviewed to verify preventive action.
The inspector found a training committment memo from the Design and Drafting Group Supervisor dated December 4, 1983 and a similar memo from the Supervisor of Design Engineers dated November 17, 1983. Training was conducted on this finding and the revision to " Drawing Room Practice," on January 3,1984, e.
Nonconformance C (Closed): Calculations for the redesign of Jacket water pump not properly signed, dated or placed in the proper notebook.
4 TDI's corrective action was reviewed. The subject calculations were checked, signed, dated and properly recorded on an engine i
calculation sheet by the Manager of Engineering on November 9, i
1983. TDI's action to prevent recurrencer was'to conduct training on the Drafting 10oam Tractice Procedure, including the require-ments governing the Design Calculations Book. This training was conducted by the Manager of Design on November 17, 1983. The inspector reviewed the subject training documentation, which l
included the names of attendees (4).
t 4
f.
Nonconformance D (Closed):
"D Sheets", which are issued by the Engineering Department and pertain to the quality of the product,
{
j were not reviewed by the Department Manager.
t t
release notices for l
To verify corrective action, the engineering (D-4956 and D-j i
the D Sheets that gave rise to this finding l
were reviewed. Each has been properly executed. For preventive j
action, Engineering Operations Procedure #9, "D Sheets (Engineering Information System )" was prepared and approved i
on January 13, 1984, and revised on October 12, 1984. Additional, preventive action taken included a training session on D Sheets and the new procedure, which was held on January 16, 1984.
i l
To verify effect'iveness of preventive action implementation, i
the inspector reviewed all D Sheets from January 1 through September 26, 1984. All were properly executed, reviewed l
(checked) and approved. A sunniary of this review is presented j
below:
1 I
l i
i
- r i
~.-,- - - - -,-
-..... - - = ~. - - -. - - -. -. -. -. -
- - ~.. -
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND. CALIFORPlIA REPORT. _..
INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 10 of 24 D SHEET No.
DESCRIPTION DATE 4947 Revise capacity of fuel 01/19/84 oil booster pump 4998 Cast Aluminum bearings 02/06-9/26/84 4999 High pressure fuel 03/15/84 injection line (shielded notheated) 5000 Mill chart for fuel pump 03/19/84 cam 5001 Fuel oil day tank 03/28/84 procedures 5002 Magnetic particle procedure 04/2/84 and standards
.. -. ~~
5003
~
~Iiquidparticleprocedure 04/2/84 and standards i
5004 Process for cladding 04/27/84 j
babbitt alloy 1
5005 Magnetic particle procedure 4/12/84 J
and standards (Replaced D-5002) g.
Nonconformance E (Closed): Route sheets for the assembly of a jacket water pump not retained by Quality Control, i
No direct corrective action for this finding is possible, since the subject route sheets were never found. However, as the best available record of proper factory assembly TDI obtained a copy,
of the Field Inspection Report that included acceptance criteria completed at Shoreham Nuclear Power Station on October 12, 1983.
The Field Inspection Report is a Shoreham startup document (S/U Forn 7.6 revision dated October, 1982) and was reviewed r
by the inspector.
Preventive action consisted of a training program for all TDI personnel whose jobs require use of route sheets. Training was conducted on December 13 (10 persons) and December 14, 1983 (3 j
1
..._._-..,.__.._.-,_._..._.---,.-,-.-_.-.--_U
ORGANIZATION:. TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKIAND. CALI 0RNIA REPORT.-
INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 11 of 24 i
persons).
In addition, TDI committed to make this subject an item for the next internal audit performed. The inspector i
reviewed the results of the internal audit conducted June 8 and 11, 1984. A subject of this audit was Manufacturing In Process Control and Inspection (IP-300). All route sheets audited were properly stamped by a quality inspector.
h.
Nonconformance F (Closed): Two route sheets associated with the modification of jacket water pumps were not properly stamped and dated.
The route sheet dated October 11, 1982 (jacket water pump shaft) was reviewed and found to be incorrectly stamped. Inspector 20 affixed his stamp in the space assigned to verify performance j
of operation 80, vice the space to signify inspection, space 90.
l To correct this finding, inspector 20 re-stamped the route sheet j
in Space 90 and added an explanatory notation on November 8,1983.
The route sheet dated November 14, 1977 (seal retainer rings) was corrected by entering the quantitL accepted.(".5"). Both route sheets were then-stamped for' final acceptance by Inspector 20
. on November 8, 1983.
By way of preventive action Inspector 20 attended the training session conducted on December 13, 1983, as referenced in Noncon-formance E, above.
1.
Nonconformance G (Withdrawn /Ciosed): Failure to conduct dynamic analysis or seismic testing of redesigned jacket water pumps.
The original design of the jacket water pump was seismically qualified by " shake" testing in accordance with the purchase specification and TDI engineering standards. The redesign of the jacket water pump performed in 1982 was analyzed for requalification in the " Water Pump Shaft and Impeller Torsion l
Analysis" performed on October 13, 1982.
(This document was reviewed by the inspector). The analysis became a part of the j
" Qualification Statement for 03-425-04 Jacket Water Cooling Pump" j
dated October 18, 1982, which was also reviewed by the inspector.
The analysis and attendant statement of seismic qualification reveal that the design change was minor and, in fact, improved the seismic capability of the jacket water pump. Thus, TDI did 4
not deviate from its engineering procedures, because paragraph 15.4.6 of E0P-1 states, "It may be noted that any items or l
j j
_ _ _ _ ~.
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION 0AKLAND. CALIFORNIA REPORT-INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 12 of 24 assemblies, once qualified for one contract, need not be requalified for subsequent jobs provided the response spectra are of comparable levels." The above referenced qualification showed the response spectra to be of comparable levels.
Based on the information presented above, which was not reviewed at the time of the original inspection, this Nonconformance is hereby withdrawn.
j.
None
'ornance H (Closed): A purchase material specification was not
,ved in accordance with TDI procedures.
TDI corrected this finding by properly approving the purchase material specification on November 11, 1983. To prevent recurrence, the Product Engineering Manager was advised of the requirements of the governing TDI procedure. Further, this 4
item was made a subject of the internal audit conducted on April 5, 1984.
k.
Nonccnformance MITo' sed): 'Falluretomeetthedatecommitted to for transmittal of 10 CFR Part 21 information to customers.
TDI committed to notify its customers regarding a potential problem with auxiliary drive couplings by July 15, 1982.
However, the subject notification letters were dated August 18, 1982.
2
(
Thus, this Nonconformance was corrected by the mailing, albeit r
34 days late, of the required'Part 21 notification.
i To prevent recurrence. TDI conducted and documented training on the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 and made this a subject of the internal audit conducted in March, 1984. Further, TDI has i
revised its method of providing Part 21 letters to customers.
This is now accomplished by sending each customer a copy of the 10 CFR Part 21 notification letter sent to the Nuclear Regulatory-Commission.
The inspector' verified adequacy of this action by reviewing all 10 CFR Part 21 reports (four) preventive
}
TDI in 1985.
made by l
i TDI has also established a " tickler" file to ensure that notification dates established in 10 CFR Part 21 t
t j
reports are not exceeded.
i
{
i r
~
l f
t
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL. INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION 0AKLAND. CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: '99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 13 of 24
~
i 2.
Inspection 83-02(September 6-15,1983)
Nonconformance A (Withdrawn / Closed): TDI did not require its a.-
supplier of diesel generator exhaust silencers to have a Quality Assurance Program in effect for the components supplied to a nuclear power plant.
4 TDI's purchase order specifying four, Part #75051-12, 42 inch Model M-41 Exhaust Silencers was issued on 10/13/76 as P.O.
j
- 62643. The purchase order stated that the exhaust silencers were to be provided "In strict accordance with Attached Specification 75051-120 Revision 8 dated 8-17-76, and Appendices 1,2,6,7 and 8."
Appendix 6 to Specification 75051-120 Revision 8 is a 28 page document titled " Quality Assurance Requirements for J 75051 (Perry Nuclear Power Plants Units 1 and 2)," and is dated 6-16-76. The purpose of Appendix 6 to Specification 75051-120 Revision 8, is found on Page 3 and states, in part.
" Establish QA an(QC p,rogram requirements 'foi pocurement of items and manufscTur,ing services...for Perry 1 and 2."
i Based on the information presented above, which was not reviewed at the time of the original inspection, this i
Nonconformance is hereby withdrawn.
)
b.
Nonconformance 8 (Closed):
Inspection stamps and dates on t
route sheets did not provide proper evidence of inspection i
i l
performance or acceptance. Corrective and preventive t
actions for the two examples cited are detailed below:
1.
Corrective action for two missing can gear bolts was L
accomplished when the engine was delivered to Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
(No reports of this problem have i
been received from other sites). The route sheet for the can timing and bolting operations previously das revised to improve the clarity of the requirements for these I
operations. ' TDI also revised the QA Manual section that addresses subassembly and assembly inspections on March 15, 1984; held two, one hour training sessions on the require-ments of inspection procedures; made this item a subject of the internal audit dated June 8 and 11, 1984. The inspector reviewed and verified the applicable revision date of the QA Manual and route sheet, the training session attendance
~
sheet, and the subject audit report.
f i
t
)
l
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, Ihc.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 14 of 24
- 11. Corrective action for this item is not possible, as the l
piston rework was accepted by the customer at TDI, and the pistons shipped and installed at Southern California Edison's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The inspector reviewed the rework and shipping documents (Sales Order N-27693) and found that 3 pistons were shipped on March 5,1982 (Certificate of Compliance 82-176 dated March 4, 1982 and signed by TDI's A. E. Nance), 10 pistons were released by SCE's W. R. Mayberry and shipped on March 27,1982 (Certificate of Compliance 82-242 dated March 26, 1982 and signed by TDI's L. Block), and 10 pistons were 4
i released by W. R. Mayberry and shipped on March 31, 1982 (Certificate of Com 28, 1982 and signed by L. Block)pliance 82-243 dated March Thus, documents associated with rework of the 23 pistons show all were inspected, accepted and documented as required.
As a result of this finding, TDI comunitted to revise their QA Manual in the section that addresses rework of t
customer property, conduct a_. training session on route l
l sheets.-and'-review rou~te sheets for the six months i
~
i following the training session. The inspector reviewed l
Section 2.2.3.1. of the QAM and found that it was l
revised on March 15, 1984 to read as follows, " Rework l
customer property or items returned from field foi-i repair or rework will be handled same as newly manu-factured parts." Training records for the class held j
on December 13 and 14, 1983 were reviewed, and the t
review of 47 completed route sheets in the six months following the training session was verified.
i N'onconformance C (Closed): Rework operations and documentation c.
for Shoreham and Grand Gulf diesel generator. pistons were not l
properly controlled.
The correct number of pistons at issue in this finding is 59; I
26 pistons from Shoreham and 33 from Grand Gulf.
It appears l
that in Inspection Report 83-02, Grand Gulf pistons were i
counted twice (59 plus 33 equals 92, and 33 plus 33 equals 66).
l That would account for the totals given in the original Notice j
of Nonconformance (92 pistons reworked from Shoreham and Grand Gulf; 66 pistons reworked with no documentation).
In any case, i
a search of records at TDI has failed to locate the 59 route I
sheets. Thus, corrective action for this finding is not
- possible, i
t l
I L
O
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: -99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 15 of 24 i
Preventive action included revision of the 0A Manual to better describe control of rework items, and a training program on 3
the intent and importance of route sheet control. The inspector l
verified the revision of the QA Manual dealing with rework items (Section 2.3.3.1) is dated March 15, 1984 (See Nonconformance B, i
above). Section 16.2.1 of the QA Manual was reviewed and found I
to describe the review of route sheets prior to release to stores (for shipping or inventory). This revision to Section 16 of the QAM is dated June 7, 1984. The training program committed to by TDI was held on March 22, 1984. Eight attendees were present, including the supervisor of the Inspection Department. The training lasted one and one-half hours.
2 d.
Nonconformance D (Closed): Jacket water pump analyses not reviewed and certified by a Registered Professional Engineer (RPE).
l Corrective action for this finding was accomplished by revising the TDI engineering procedures that address the requirements for approval by an RPE. These procedures were reissued as Engineering QweHty Procedures 5, 6 and 7.
However, upon i
review by the inspector, these revised procedures still do not adequately define cases for which certification by an RPE 1
is required. To remedy this remaining area of confusion. TDI has cosuitted to provide a list of circumstances that will require certification of analyses / calculations by an RPE.
It was also noted during this inspection that both the previous and current revision to the subject procedures require review and approval of calculations / analyses by the cognizant manager,,
and that the analyses in question had not been so approved. When brought to their attention by the inspector TDI immediately had l
the items reviewed and approved by the Manager of Applied l
Mechanics.
l l
Actions taken to prevent recurrence included making this item a subject of the audit performed on May 29, 1985:and having TDI l
engineering managers review and approve (by signature) all l
analyses between January, 1984 and this date. A sample of these I
analyses was reviewed during the inspection. No findings of nonconformance were identified.
e.
Nonconformance E (Closed): Reports of nondestructive examinations performed on engine cylinder heads not initiated.
I O
t y
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION 0AKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 16 of 24 I
Corrective action for this finding is not possible since all combustion cylinder components have been shipped to the site and installed. However, other non-destructive examination records for the subject components were reviewed. Entries verified on the monthly " Casting and Machining Problems with RV-4 Steel Cylinder Heads" report show that magnetic particle examination was performed and indtcations repaired.
A sumary of this report follows:
Head Serial No.
Repair Sunnary G-83 5 hot tears comb. side, 4
3 shroud side H-56 15 hot tears, I sand H-66 OK H-67 3 hot tears, 3 sand H-89 OK Material Test'iteporfs for'the following cylinder heads were
]
also reviewed, with the following results:
Serial No.
NDE Procedure Date G-60 600-30 Addendum A (MT 4-6-82 i
600-50 Addendum (UT))
4-6-82 H-89 600-30 Addendum A (MT) 6-10-82..
600-50 Addendum (UT) 6-10-82 H-60 600-30 Addendum A (MT 5-10-82 600-50 Addendum (UT))
5-10-82 In addition, route sheets for two cylinder heads were reviewed to verify performance of dye penetrant (PT) MDE:
Serial No.
Route Sheet Operation Inspector Date H-60 170 QC-30 3-23-83 H-89 170 QC-30 3-29-83 i
f
^
l
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION 0AKLAND. CALIFORNIA i
REPORT INSPECTION I
NO.:~ 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 17 of 24 i
i Previous TDI practice was to use the route sheet sign-off as evidence that all repairs and NDE were performed. While the test report was a compilation of the entire manufacturing, l
repair, and acceptance process, the NDE information was available elsewhere.
I The following actions were taken t'o prevent recurrence of this l
finding: Training on the requirements of Inspection Procedure 600 was conducted for the Foundry QC Supervisor on February 3, 1984; the Inspection QC Supervisor on January 30,1984; and mechanical inspectors and NDE technicians on October 14, 1983.
This finding was also made a subject of the internal audit of the foundry conducted on March 13, 1984.
In addition, forms documenting liquid penetrant and magretic particle NOE have been i
revised to improve clarity.
l f.
Nonconformance F (Closed): Some TDI employees performing NDE j
on cylinder heads were not certified NDE examiners.
Corrective action _for this finding was a'ccomplished by qualifying i
and certifyirig-~NDE examiners in accordance with applicable i
standards. This training course was held on October 14, 1983 for eight TDI employees.
It was conducted by a certified NDE l
Level III examiner.
f Preventive action taken consisted of a letter to supervisors l
stating the TDI policy of not allowing non-certified personnel l
to perform NDE. This letter also itsted the eight persons recently certified (corrective action above) to perform NDE.
Additional preventive action was accomplished by making this
)
item a subject of the next internal audit. The inspector verified the results of this audit that showed 61 liquid penetrant exa-tinations were performed and stamped by qualified i
NDE examiners between February 8 and April 25, 1984.
In addition, the inspector noted that 37 route sheets were l
verified by TDI as being properly documented for NDE l
j requirements during the audit conducted on May 3 anu 4,1984.
[
g.
Nonconformance G (Closed):
Improper construction of NDE practical examinations and the TDI t.evel III radiographer did i
not maintain continuous certification.
Corrective action for this finding was accomplished by requali-i fying all TDI NDE personnel using a properly constructed 10
(
i i
l l
1
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION l
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA l
i REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 18 of 24 point practical evaluation portion of the examination.
The inspector reviewed the NDE qualification records for all 3 NDE testers and found that each had a 10 point practical evaluation portion of the examination. Requalification for all three NDE testers was completed on October 24, 1983.
(Exami-nations in radiogra visual NDE methods)phic, magnetic particle, dye penetrant and The inspector also reviewed the TDI approved suppliers list for radiographic NDE vendors and found
~
that Transworld Testing was last audited by TDI in February, 1983. Their approval lasts until February, W6. TDI last purchased radiography services from Transwor in May 1985 (Purchase Order #34808) as evidenced by Certified Test Report CN 6406 dated May 10, 1985.
s Preventive action was accomplished by requiring a 10 point check
)
list as part of the TDI NDE qualification procedure; maintaining a Level III examiner in all NDE disciplines or subcontracting i
such services; reviewing implementation of the corrective i
actions during the next internal gu4it,.The inspector noted that the internal audit conducted March 13, 1984 reviewed the corrective and preventive actions of this finding and determined them satisfactory, 3
i h.
NonconformanceH(Closed): Route sheets not properly stamped i
or initialled by inspectors, and re-use of a surrendered inspection stamp before the mandatory 6-month waiting period had elapsed.
i Corrective action for this finding is not possible since all inspection activities are complete and the subject components have been shipped to the site for installation.
Training on the requirements for proper completion and documen-l tation of route sheets was completed in conjunction with preventive action for Nonconformance E of Inspection Report i
83-01 and Nonconformance 8 above (a training course given j
December 13 and 14,1984 for 13 TDI inspectors).
Further i
preventive action was taken in a new revision of the In Process Inspection Manual dated May 1, 1985, that states, in part,
... inspector will stamp or initial and date the Production j
Routing Sheet, Form P-1358, in the space provided."
Additional preventive action was taken by developing a new lo in which the issue status of inspection stamps is recorded.
he Stamp Assignment Log has six columns by which stamps can be i-I l
i i
l l
I
~-,--.-,,-,,-----nnn-,
ae
-~eym,me-
,,n.,-m,,,
,, mew _ry.-,,---,vmm.-,emw w-
.mmew,
~~ry
_ - - _ ~
)
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.:. 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 19 of 24 k
traced. Column headings are: Stamp No., Inspector Name; Issue Date, Cancel Date, Name (Re-Assign), and Reassign Date. This item was a subject of the internal audit conducted June 8 and 11, 1984; no findings were identified.
1.
NonconformanceI(Closed): A weld machine and heat treat furnace out of calibration.
1 To correct this finding, TOI recalibrated all weld machines and heat treat furnaces, then added them to their calibration recall system.
The effectiveness of those corrective and preventive actions was verified satisfactory during the internal QA audit conducted in March, 1984. The inspector reviewed selected weld machines and heat treat furnace calibration records during this inspection. No discrepancies were identified. A plant tour was also perfomed to inspect machine calibration stickers. All machines and furnaces were either in calibration or posted "Out of Service-Do Not Use." Calibration was performed by Pacific Calibration Services, who is on TDI's list of approved, suppliers.
i j.
NonconformancesJ -(Closed)': ~ WelTproc'edure thing used did not match procedure specified on route sheet.
\\
Corrective action for this finding was accomplished by revising the route sheet for hard facing valve teats. The subject route sheet was revised to raquire weld procedure 100-W-17A (vice 100-W-17) on October 11, 1983.
(The correct weld procedure was being used when this finding was identified, the
]
route sheet specified the previous revision).
Preventive action for this finding was accomplished by revising the specification for hard facing valve seats. Specification 100-A-1, Addendum A. Rev. O dated March 22, 1984 now calls for I
procedure 100-W-17A to be followed when hard facing valve seats.
i This item was the subject of the internal audit of June 8 and 11, l
1984. No discrepancies were noted.
c i
k.
Nonconformance K (Closed): Completed route sheets not retained by Quality Control.
Corrective action for this finding is not possible since the assembly route sheets have never been found. Manufacturing route sheets were, however, retained by QC and were examined by the inspector.
l l
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 20 of 24 i
Preventive action for this finding was accomplished by revising the procedure that governs control and retention of route sheets i
for manufacturing and assembly. The results of this preventive action were audited by TDI on June 8 and 11,1984. No discrep-I ancies were found.
h 1.
Nonconformance L (Closed): Certificates of Compliance for i
combustion cylinder heads furnished to Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS) were not notarized.
Historically, The Architect En t
Long Island Lighting Company (gineer (Stone & Webster) for owner-operator of SNPS) has chosen not to require performance of specification SH1-89 '
i j
(notarized Certificate of Compliance) by TDI. However, to correct this finding, TDI wrote a letter to the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCo) Purchasing Agent asking if they i
wished to now enforce this portion of the specification.
l (LetterdatedMarch6,1984). The inspector reviewed the 1
reply, dated March 26, 1984, which stated.
zation is not reguired for-any-Certificatie o.in part, "...notari-f Compliance i
submitted by7ransamerica Delaval Incorporated to Long Island i
Lighting Company for parts supplied in accordance with SH1-89."
For preventive action, all TDI Quality Engineers were advised of l
this item of noncompliance and the need to review carefully all future contracts for such commitments.
i 1
3.
Inspection 83-03(October 17-21,1983)
{
l i
a.
Nonconformance A (Unresolved): A discussion of this item is j
found in Section D, of this report, " Unresolved Items."
i b.
NonconformanceB(Closed): Written instructions not provided i
i and a weld report not completed for welding fuel oil line clamp i
brackets.
i i
I
{
Corrective Action Request (CAR) 120 was issued on February 13, j
1984 to addres. this finding. CAR 120 requires: Manufacturing i
receive instruction through the route sheet indicating the j
correct weld procedure to be used; the assembly department supervisor instruct the welder as to what weld procedure to i
use; the inspector verify that the correct weld procedure was used, the weld is acceptable, and the welder is qualified.
i
{
l l
i
---.-.- --.-.-a
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL. INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION 0AKLAND. CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 21 of 24 I
i To assure corrective action implementation and prevent recurrence of this finding, the Manager of Quality Assurance was assigned to audit this area during the following internal audit. This item was a subject of the audit conducted on June 8 and 11, 1984.
No discrepancies were noted.
c.
NonconformanceC1(Closed): Material from which ASME Code Class 3 component supports and fuel oil systems were fabricated was purchased from vendors not on TDI's Approved Suppliers List or audited by TDI.
Corrective Action C1: Of the six vendors who supplied material for supports and fuel oil systems supplied to two nuclear stations, only one (Coulter Steel Forge Co., N-Cert. #N-1189 i
issued 8/04/75 and expired 8/4/78) was properly authorized to i
be on TDI's Approved Suppliers List (ASL). The remaining five vendors were placed on the list after completing a self-audit i
mail-in survey short form (P-268). Corrective action for this j
finding was to remove all suppliers from the ASL and use only ASME Code Certificate holders.or compantes' aedited by TDI.
Since j
1980. TDI has u's'Ef only such suppliers for nuclear materials with the exception of Bethlehan Steel Co., Burress Harbor, Indiana, which was audited by TDI. The inspector reviewed the
)
report of this audit, which was conducted.on May 3, 1980.
{
1 The audit was perfomed in accordance with NCA 3800 using Fom t
P-324, as follows, " Audit conducted in accordance with the rules of NCA 3820 because no QA certificate held by Bethlehem Steel Co.
r for steel plate. Overall evaluation-Facility approved as material manufacturer of steel plate per [NCA] 3820." Removal
~'
of improperly approved suppliers and the enforced policy of TDI i
to use only properly approved suppliers, or those holding valid i
ASME certificates, is the preventive action for this finding.
1 i
d.
NonconformanceC2(Closed): Prior to 1982. ASE Code Class 3 I
fasteners were purchased from vendors;neither on TDI's Approved I
Supplier's List nor audited by TDI.
i Corrective Action C2: Since March of 1982, TDI has purchased f
Code fasteners from Sargent Nut and Bolt, a distributor of Power and Engineered Products Co. (PEPCo). The inspector examined i
i PEPCo's Qualit March 3,1983)y Certificate (QSC #399 dated March 3,1980 to QSC #399 was renewed by'PEPCo on February 25,
[
j 1983, and has a current expiration date of March 3,1986.
t l
I f
%w, S
g'
,.n.,--,-.,~--..,-nn.n.~.,
n,_
.,w,,.___,_,--
.__,,,,,m,._n_._,,,.
ORGANEZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKIAND. CALIFORNVA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 22 of 24 l
e.
Nonconformance D (Closed): Receipt inspection of Code fasteners i
did not assure compliance with Purchase Order. Specifically, the material composition of the fasteners did not meet requirements, mechanical test data was incomplete and heat treatment informa-1 tion was missing.
l
. Corrective action for this finding was accomplished by performing laboratory and physical tests to establish material composition and strength of the fasteners. The following table presents the material test results as reviewed by the inspector:
Bolt Test Yield Tensile Elon etion Area Heat No.
Date (PSI)
(PSI)
Red.'(%)
i N-37268 2/29/84 134,100 144,300 19 60
)
N-35238 2/29/84 126.700 135,600 18 65 i
i N-54957*
2/29/84
- Bolt from Heat N-54957 was too small for the pull bar i
The tests wereN, foried and certified by physical test labora-
~
tory #4-113, Testing and Controls Co. The strength tests indicate that the requirements of ASE Section II Table 1 of SA 325 were satisfied. Material composition tests were perfomed i
by spectroscope on February 27, 1964, with the results found to be in compliance with the purchase order.
Preventive action has been accomplished by revising the QA Manual requirements of receipt inspection and its relationship to Quality Engineering as follows:
"All material or item certifi-cations / documents are reviewed by the Receiving Inspector for compliance with the Purchase Order. After this review, the
. Receiving Inspector contacts Quality Engineering for their review and acceptance of the documents for compliance to the codes and standards." This change to the QA Manual is found in Control of Purchased Material Items and Services, Section 4.0 of the Third,
Edition, Revision 0 dated April 10, 1984. This change was reviewed and approved by a representative of the Hartford Steam i
Boiler Company (TDI Authorized Nuclear Inspector) on April -11, 1984.
i f.
Nonconforinance E (0 pen): This finding involves fasteners (nuts, bolts and screws) that were purchased as stock material and subsequently certified as being in compliance with ASME Code 1
s e
. [
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION 0AKLAND, CALIFORNIA a
3 REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 23 of 24 Section III, yet the applicable material requirements of the Code were rot met. To date, TDI has not addressed the issue central to this fin n g.
To wit: TDI has not accepted that a
)
material check-analy..s is required by ASME Code Section i
3867.4e(2), and thus the material is not in compliance with Code requirements.
Further, TDI has not proposed adequate 1
corrective action (e.g., notify purchasers of such fasteners that they may not comply with Code requirements).
Preventive action proposed by TDI is to purchase ASME Code material only from suppliers having a current ASME Quality Certificate.
In addition, material documentation is now reviewed by a Receiving Inspector for compliance with the purchase' order, and a Quality Engineer for compliance with applicable codes and standards.
g.
Nonconformance F (Closed): Discrepancies were noted between inventory records used in the TDI storage area and the material used in construction of some engine piping system supports.
s This finding'was corrected by deleting Fom P-316, Material Control Record, from the TDI QA Program.
Fom P-316 was the document used to keep track of material in storage at TDI, while the Material Verification Sheet is.the official record of 1.
material used in component manufacture. The inspector reviewed the current copy of the QA Manual and found Form P-316 deleted.
In addition, the Cote Data Package for P.O. NY435079 (starting air system) was reviewed and found to contain the required Material Verificatien Sheet to be reviewed by the Authorized Nuclear Inspector.
I h.
Nonconformance G (Closed): Prior to 1981, the TDI foundry did no'; perform stress relief heat treatment on model AN piston skirts as specified in engineering drawings. As a result of j
this lack of stress relieving, some model AN piston skirts cracked in service.
Corrective action for this finding was accomplished through the issuance of a 10 CFR Part 21 report dated October 28, 1982.
In the Part 21 report, the six utilities that received these piston skirts were identified (each was sent their own copy of the i
10 CFR Part 21 report) and advised to either return them to TDI o
for proper stress relieving, or replace them with properly manufactured model AE piston skirts. The inspector sampled TDI records to verify that the affected utilities properly responded, l
to this Part 21 notification.
1 t
_ _. _,.., _. _ _ _ _. _.. ~ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _. _ - _ _-
-.. -..1 ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INC.
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISf0N OAKLAND. CALIFORNVA a
REPORI INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/85-01 RESULTS:
> AGE 24 of 24 I
Preventive action corsnitted to by TDI in their letter of March 2, 1984 has been fully accomplished. Their commitment was in the
+
form of Corrective Action Request (CAR) 121, which was initiated by TDI on February 13, 1984 and closed on September 24, 1984.
l This CAR directed that foundry heat treat charts be revised to better control and document heat tr. eat activities, and required a documented review of engineering drawing heat treatment requirements. Better control and documentation of foundry heat treatment is now afforded through a new Heat Treat Load Chart (Forn P-396). The new chart indicates Series Number, Heat Number and Part Number.
In addition, TDI perfonned a failure analysis (FA Report #153, dated June 20,1983) on the circum-stances surrounding the heat improper treatment of Model AN piston skirts. It was established that there was some confusion between the material and associated hardness requirement for the ductil fron used to make the piston skirts. While the material composition had a tensil strength of 80,000 psi, the heat treatment specification called for hardness equivalent to.
100,000 psi material. Since the material,a.nd..its heat treatment for hardness. warn incompatible. TDI ' changed the material speciff-cation to 100,000 psi tensil strength traterial and has replaced all AN piston skirts with the newly designated model AE piston skirt.
i H.
EXIT INTERVIEW The single nonconformance identified during this inspection, as well as the resolution status of all previous violations and nonconformances, were discussed with TDI management at the exit interview.
t i
r 1
?
' Company 4/74NSAwfE /C4 budt Dates TUNP 3-7 /9 4 S
.0ccket/ Report No.9 9 900'334/MF-O/
Inspector d. M. T(2c C TJ,ftf Page d of 1 NAME(Please Print)
TITLE (Piease Print)
ORGANIZATION (Please Print'
- k. L. No(4At bu O4 fM I
t W C
$m&4
~
.Yno
>$n 7l)[
_ b Le C.
[MM A
QA 9cd *
~ % tt d o Y)c-4-
G;e m (A~le+ I On4ti$o h~n g
Th.z-N bb'cb 44 d e [m M(n Ih7
~J. C. [d U d f
~ M>cbe b 0s10Rt/UML i) d Gd5Tiref
^ L k LT l L u uwa c.
W 9
,k UW.
VNO h
[
CAg M )2
~
I
. Sywj!Li.o ee?
7[jr a
l a
- =
~
er 66N O
6N
.__._.___,,..,___.._._,....._-._.~.__.__.._.._._._.-.__---_______._._-._.-___f
Y
\\
c t
k d
l$
~
Ei t
N h
e e o
i a} }
s d
6
] dM 9
e
~
ee CC h
Q
% Nfd h k es:
e m
u s
a i %
4 m
,g 1
E
,q,
')'
kQ.
'N y)
~
N
} l 4
4.]
sk d
5h w -.
m 4
a _;
E l
1 0
0
,3 e;
.j b
_g xt I
at<
h
!d i
j I
I i
i i
9 l
2 i
3 5
i i
=
s 2
3 4
!2 to d
I oE 2._
?!
"o3$$=g=IT H
m
=
wE
'3 O
0 o r T M3 25t%282E
~g o
y r
'v b b ~$
e e
5#
W c; s-e 6
l[
- o c; km[:8=* E 3
~
d' ga 5$22 A
fd 1
d r 7 W d N O e
- j..... -...
S U
~
- IyaggfE, e
A a
s 1
i 5
(C s
0
\\
4 -
S >C Q
p
,e l'
~
=
c h
t @g 4
=
c 3
i g
c h*j s
d.
s o,
{ goJ 4 m
^
w A
? k e
b, )-
?
EE 2
"h '$
3
=
2
+i; 4
Ei s 9 4 I ik 7
J4 J 3f e.d a
e d ee a
m 5
9 4
9 4l g a n
__);
s a
f
=
2 Jp 3
1 g
s e ec y W
W E
k A
- M 9
4 j)J j
=
=
l g
g I
\\
g i
i i
)
)
3 g
i t
5
~
!E 1
w p
i i
I W
3 e
a S
[
u s
3 g
3 41 0
a5
- z thi
\\
wE OE~8.-
H)*
i
. rte!"::
1 k
g Eu !,j 3 3
- st Siat t e
~1ahtas tt x.
gg gg
- m. +-. u J r a
t
"" 2 5 *&a. E
~
v.
E b.o i
~
l l
1-_.,,__._._.___.,._.___._._._...____._._____.________.__._
a
.2 G
,, (
i h
I i
i 8 Dv q!'
l l
j.1 l
i
.i g
l i
i m a n ka i
t
.M i
ee i
I e
W, e
.i@
s 9,
J i
{ t) i4
{
U N t
owc I
i e'
~
\\
(3' H
H L b
y y
o 0
.h 3
C O y g
vj
)
t g
% 1 o
'k 4
8 h l n y L%R k'}
W-
- 5 E
I j T4,'
.7
,.4 i
e i
1 3
a t
.r 4
d g
)
@ g e
J o
e
.g M
s e dd 2 2 d a b
- w astnywexua=us e
4
! 6 9 i
i Y S
+Ju 4
4 4.) A s mi ?
E 4
- 9 j
e u
a wa.
e
$3 14 900 T
i i
i i
t i
i 0 5 j q
~.
s n
~
o.
N 4 p p 9,s t
14 )
(
w
^
in a
I, v
( 4 14
& *v g S ?
e, e
1 1
~
~
~
n.
Jgg i YJ s
e ij o 2ao2 j
d n 'o c o I EiijE-d v a a e.
@ T e.
y,o !8 0.0 0 0Q o C
4 % u gau t
o i
. E e, g o r.
AE 3k
~
cJ, n g 10, O f @
8 2
C 2
? ce l
l l
l i
.. -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
i e
i I
t I
j i
ei, k
I i
I b
r I
i i
i i
i s
8 0 I
i j
i i
4 l
1 e
q l
^
j j
l m
I i
i; i
Q M u r0 1
7 I
=7
,y Q Q s
I t
t, M i,
s
)
.e w
i 5Es i b 3.
' 4 -};
4 3
C t.! C D
i 04 4 i
1 y
a p
i I.g. t d
y 4
=j a
A 3
1 0
Q
\\
o!
ur N
w
.M 7
g h
e
.>a I
F gq,.. * (#I s.
d 2 2
ol,le, d,.
e i
4 '. }.f 3
6 3
3 d
'c I
4 o
4
=,
b 4
b
- 4 f:
~
O M
^
d gi kg
) s$
+
+
8' 'Ik$
LA 7
3 s
t i
A,
- , 4 4,
3
_1 d
1 A
.=
e w
5 a
m 1
,a e
v,'
e a
'til j
1 g
i il i
9 1
i i
i 1
I i
5 j
.s
't m,
g
+g h==
h E
i O
O 9
l l
a W
e o
8 o
8 gj o
a 1
b g
w +
g
.$.y.e w W.
o
= w.a s
a
- i M a= h W
a o o g
o o
4 o =
8s u grqiti
- E rJ d
2 e)
O z Q
O s
6
{8 d
- x dW }
d d B G
d o
o'%
St g
ch zg li, ~a @
=
c-4 i
e p % l ~u n,a A d g.; o a x 4
o e
m e
-- y e t
~
t l
-__,_..___.._._,.,m.
__,._.,.,_-.-._...,_.,,,__.m___._
.o
-2 O
l i*
iQ f
i jk!W
~
g i~
e Go j
' i i
i i
i et i%
s.
i i
i ira i
'y lg j
i m u n 7
d j Ej i
',0Q 0 s
o' l
l g,
i 7
W E i I
s sl lk 2
n 3yf$
t v
s w
m j
i d
m?
a 1
\\
c 1
w o
V C
J 4)
%] &
b yi Y'd y b4 j 3 f i
lb g J
a o
x 4 4 ~4,h e
't i dJ q e
3 y
@% a a, w 1-w I
'm q
.j g
x w
s e
b s
e a
e 4
4 3
4 d
4 r
M na m 2 V_v s
4, e ? ?
- 4% e t
a t o t
n gf :
4 4
4 A
4 4 b
9 M M
a a
v e ar ee 4 ea a
s
+
.i.i k,
1 1
\\
\\
I
\\1 1
s
\\
e
\\
\\
3 Y
w
\\
i j
3 1.4 7}
w i i* 3 5" t
M
+
\\
i f l i
a r
5 d.s4 4.. M w
-d C
een 5 0,g 'o d b L g
o J
o
'a o.
- 2drc,
o n
Q Q
O O
d c)
U o E5c,ho(
5 D
9 9 d
d g
d d d g US O C d
g l
m e,,
,s,
^
es s e w
e s
e e e,c,c,e. y 4 e 4 +e v +n,- ~ =
t v
r
,4g,,m
=we
--~v-
. - -,r--y n-
-9
-,,-----,-eei---ymwye y. w -, 3 rweyy e-e, w4-,,,
,.,,.r,w-,mem--3my----w--e+ww--.--,wwe, wm-.
-w-,
y--n---,--.w,-e*-_w-rm-
1 INsrecToR /[. N b M
oocen.T ilo.
9 9 9 dn3 ') +
SCOPEIM'ad'J 4 j
, DocOMENTs EXAMtMED Rcront tij. Q - 6 /
ence
+
09 d
l
- g" MJl, *,y,"* "
aav.
onva Tiits /susaacy M
QCD St_-I'A._
7-4-8t S d. C 4 7 3 S o r r G.e Pvh- _ =
s di-G.Cd>
At QA 8 7-zggt CgC M,_/o $'oA/6j hQ
)
Q P O. ' 2N D N4 64 A /,+ OA hk g
41) on
' 9-tr-84.%da. z. 2:3( kw-Et (M Est _)
So
&A m 4 64-84 N
/4 1 1 M
(M hk
~
7 u -e4 rde M & LARrohf st aca 4
l Wh4 b /AuM fC w A. Av-4764C,/.lhhaa;i-5L ac-h 1
o o
o Q
bb
-bt IM h~lO-W
~A Y hh b
-N.I I-s> Jb 2 <to.L/-WM (J -co) l
$_ d.cb 39-83 O h M M-89 l
Q OA.D 2
i b
~
kN M
M VI EO8N
~
J (7
l Sk D
(D-/4- 0)
()tek
& h h p F M ___TG & b _...
~~
Q_ 6.C6 10
.-i+ sg eMt to ~~
~ ~ -
TYPE OF DOC; DWr, - DRAW eMG (T R. - (ETfE R.
SPEC-SPEct f*1C AYtod PRO-ProcEOuRE
~
cAtt-Q A HAM'IM-t
l,$
k El l
l I
.g m
i 8
l l
ni 9
i p
4
..y n
4
!O l
I l
I,.2 r
u o
(d v d i
0
=w i
l i
!i 0
i 3
0 c
i a
i a
i i
i 4
(t s
I
'i o
y @e g
.d n u
.g
'i j
e d
.% C u
44 i
1 i
zw y
~;
i j
hee 4
hw
'l }4<
8 E1 ggi
-pd'b
,/
l n
J,
,4 4M f m, o4-J 3
(
os48 o
\\,1 s n
b 4,
3:
9 W
4 y
6 2
o U +.$, R og j d
,0 o
a j,i
+
W N
n J
g f
E
- b)! %
11 b), i d
j
,9 c
i g
c (".Y J t)
J F
+g.1 y s
y
', a a
C 4
0 4
.G i
s
-T=
2
,4
. %=r
')
I l
l h kN $
=
! kk :k 8 %9 i %
h I
V 9
t Hs 3
6
)
r o
ww m r.s A
A 2
ie i
y
.i t
"M l k
l l
d l
I
}
l dW' t
[
i.
i 5
d b-r4 t
.f g
\\
L i
i
)
i 2
. 1 LA a
.. Jg;; i w )rl-i hc4 E n 3i' m
1
.b c.t y C.
By 0 o a
em:
d a L eg a
,8 u
cO o eL cl c6 o a* c. a i
ye cO ae ei t i y
' % P & F M ** e 00 6
I I h hE i e c o ' t,f p
l 9:s L
__....--..___...,,-.,~,,.---,.e-.-.r.,
,,---....-....e-
.__.,,..---,.,y
_..m..,m._
-,-m._
,,,.,--,.,m,-,
,, -. - - ~,, ~..,.
-