ML20211K939
| ML20211K939 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 01/18/1983 |
| From: | Robert Lewis NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011C460 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-656, REF-PT21-83 NUDOCS 8612150219 | |
| Download: ML20211K939 (2) | |
Text
. .
- - I
- pa nsauq'o, UNITED STATES 1 !% T n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
', 3 E REGION 11
~#
k 101 MARIETTA ST N.W., SUITE 3100 ATLANTA, GLORGIA 30303 j"
JA N 181983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, Vendor Inspection Branch, Region IV FROM: R. C. Lewis, Director, Division of Project and Resident Programs
SUBJECT:
CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY REPORT - CONFIRMATION OF TELECON <
(AITS N0. F02700328 )
Enclosed is a 10/CFR 50.55(e)/10 CFR 21 report received from Carolina Power and Light Co . This appears to be a generic problem. Would you please followup on the generic aspects of the problem with the AE/ Vendor? Should you i have additional questions, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
E. c.
R. C. Lewis
Enclosure:
as stated cc: J. Olshinski, RII Director, DPRP, RI Director, DPRP, RIII Di rector, DRRP&EP, RV B. Heishman , IE CONTACT: A. K. Hardin (242- 5509 )
8612150219 861203 PDR FOIA ELLIS86-656 PDR 00
- k DAILY REPORT INPilT DIVISION OF PROJECT AT1D RESIDE!iT PROGRAF 45 - DATE Jan. 18,;1983 FACILITY ' ITEll GR tNENT,
.gTIFICATIOri REGIONAL A'CTION liarris 1 M 1/17 Potacial 50.55c - Bolt.ing raterial for Follcwap per MC 2512
DN: 50-400 Trans 2n:rican DcIaval diescl generators and Cat. II cagines was not properly identified in Region IV notificd
^
accordance with design requirements. 'Ihc .
[
L licansce is evaluating. The problcm,is l e
potential ~ofgeneric.. i i
i i
j
'l1 DISIRIBUTION:
APPROVED BY:
Railicaal Administrator (Original) pnp gjje Originator ([' '-
Originator: A. K. Ihrain SectionChief(jt. ,
Branch Chief 7 : I _
r m p fir. i.cuis ' ' f,w / _ . . _ ,
. **D
Transameric- M"",";7& ;g'",, s
- . Delaval 5* $5m ^=
P.o. Box 2161 oakland, California 94621 (415) 577 7400 March 4, 1983 Docket No. 99900334/82-02 U.S. Nuclear Rean1atory Cn=riasion Region IV -
611 Ryan Plaza Dr Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 M-3 N Attention: Mr. Uldis Popapovs --
Gentlemen:
Please refer to your letter of February 15, 1983 in response to our letter of January 5, 1983.
Follouing is additional information on Itan B:
As you stated our Quality Assurance Manual says in Paragraph 4.4.3
'4:ality representatives shall survey major / critical equipment suppliers at a minimen of every three years to assure the Vendor's ability to ccxuply with the specifiention requireuxnts and view the inplementation of the Suppliers Quality Program., to re-Our Approved Suppliers List Procedure dated March 31, 1982 in Para-graph 2.2.6.1 under Audit / Survey states: "Short Form (P-268), is empleted by the Supplier or by a TDI Representative and returned to the Quality Assurance Department. Upon receipt, the form is evaluated. If the evaluation is satisfactory, the Supplier is entered on the ASL indicating pertinent information." "Ihe Short Form is used for initial contact with the Supplier. Evaluation of I the Short Form and previous Vendor history will be used to de-termine what, if any, further auditing action is required."
The Survey Form which was in our Kobe Steel file was reviewed l 3/8/82 and marked "ok for S.R.(Safety-Related) Forgings". We l feel this ccxupleted form in our file indicates coupliance to our j Q.A. P m p mu as covered in Paragraph 4.4.3.
i In addition to the information in our letter cf January 5, 1983 cn Kobe Steel, I would also like to point out that Kobe Steel holds a current bH, E, N, and NPI ASIC Certificate.
If you require any additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely, GG w R. E. Bayer, Manager Quality Assurance REB:hw 30 W o @ ggO d
0RGANIZATION: TRANSAMERfCA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA r
REPORT INSPECTION INSPECTION NO.:
99900334/83-02 DATE(S): 9/6-15/83 ON-SITE HOURS: 114 r
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Transamerica Delaval, Incorporated Engine and Compressor Division ATTN: Mr. C. Matthews, Vice President and General Mgr.
550 85th Avenue Oakland, California 94261 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. R. E. Boyer, Manager, Quality Assurance TO.EPHONE NUMBER: (415) 577-7422.
r pgINCIPAL PRODUCT: Emergency diesel generators.
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Transamerica Delaval, Incorporated (TDI) has one inprocess contract for domestic nuclear emergency diesel generators.
ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: iia f-a, - v +
p J. W. Sutton, Special Projects Section Date OTHER INSPECTOR (S): W. E. Foster, Reactive Inspection Section (RIS)
I. Barnes, RIS APPROVED BY: / 8%e /-a .e4 t I. Barnes, Chief, RIS Date INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A. BASES: 10 CFR Part 21 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
- 3. SCOPE: This inspection was made at the request of both NRC Headquarters and Regional Offices as a result of the identification of numerous deficiencies in emergency diesel generators (EDGs) that have been furnished to various sites. Subjects addressed during this inspection included: (1) rocker arm capscrew failure, (2) seismic qualification of (cont. on next page)
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY:
bcker arm capscrew failure, missing timing gear bolts, cracked cylinder heads
, leaking lube oil cooler tubes: 50-322. Jacket water pump shaft
! failure: 50-322, 50-312, 50-458/459. Seismic qualification of hfflers/ silencers: 50-329/330, 50-312, 50-440/441. Piston head Nb 50-206. 50-322. 50-416/417.
$401l36N 245 L_ .- ??_- . .-- - - - -
O b'
L ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/83-02 RESULTS: PAGE 2 of 10
~
l SCOPE: (cont.) l diesel mufflers / silencers, (3) missing cam gear bolts, (4) leaking lube ,
oil cooler tubes, (5) piston head rework, (6) field service activities, j (7) cracked cylinder heads, and (8) jacket water pump shaft failure. j l
A. VIOLATIONS-l i
None B. NONCONFORMANCES:
- 1. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, paragraphs 1:02.2 and 2:06.10 in Perry Specification No. SP-750-454-9-00 and paragraph 1:06.4 in Perry Specification No. SP-706-454-9-00, a QA program was not imposed by TDI on the manufacturer of exhaust silencers for EDGs furnished to Perry, Units 1 and 2.
- 2. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and paragraphs 10.2.6 and 10.3.2 in Section 10 of the Quality Assurance Manual (QAM), inspection stamps and dates on process sheets did not, necessarily, provide evidence of performance of inspection or inspection acceptance as illustrated by the following examples:
l a. Operation 550 (i.e., dosel cam gear rocker arm hold down bolt installation) in the assembly route sheets (RSs) for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS) EDG Serial Nos. 74011, 74012, and 74013 was stampted off as complete by the QC inspector. A subsequent inspection at the SNPS site discovered, however, that the bolts had not been installed.
- b. A Certificate of Compliance was signed on March 4,1982, for 23 reworked pistons and shipment made to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, on the following day. Review of inspection dates on RSs for these pistons indicated, however, that QC inspectors accepted the various RS operations in the time period of March 22-26, 1982.
- 3. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix 8 to 10 CFR Part 50, paragraph 8.1.3 in Section 8 of the QAM and paragraph 4.17.1 in Bechtel Specification 9645-M-018-0, Revision 4:
- a. Rework was performed on 92 pistons from SNPS and Grand Gulf EDGs p
without issue and use of RSs.
L
- 8 i
246
- i
ORGANIZATION:
TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATE 0 ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT NO.: INSPECTION 99900334/83-02 RESULTS:
. PAGE 3 of 10 b.
Records of activities affecting quality were not maintained with respect to rework operations performed on 66 pistons from Grand Gulf. .
4.
Contrary to paragraphs Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Procedure 6 dated July 21,2.2, 1978,2.2.3, 2.3,.2.3.2, and 2.4 in Engineering Operating September 24 and October 4, 1982, and 15, Julyjacket water 1983, for the pump analyses dated Engineer (RPE).SNPS had not been certified by the staff Registered Professiona 5.
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, paragraph 6.4 in Section 6.0 of the Foundry Quality Control Manual and paragraph 10.1 in Quality Control Procedure (QCP) I.P.600-20, the following was noted with respect to replacement cylinder head Order [P0] No. 310552-23): assemblies for SNPS (Long Island Lighting Com a.
Test reports had not been initiated to confirm performance of magnetic particle and ultrasonic examination of castings.
Examples by serial and heat number are G83/381J, H-60/519J, H-56/512J, H-66, 67/533J, and H-89/586J.
b.
Liquid penetrant inspection reports had not been issued in regard to dye check of valve seats of cylinder heads.
6.
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and i
1981, of the QAM, certain personnel performing nondestructive ,
examinations of cylinder heads for SNPS on LILCO PO No.
not been certified. 310552-23 had l Nos. 3, 8, and 10 (i.e., unqualified personnel) at nondestructiveTh operations on RSs for Part No. 03-360-03-OF.
number are G-53, H-11, E-71, H-50, and G-83. Examples by serial 7.
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and paragraphs 4.4.2 and 4.6.1 in QCP I.P.600, review of certification that practical examination records did not indicate the use o checkpoints by the examiner.
to the 3 year recertification requirement that the Level IIIt was additionally n radiographer was certified on August 20, 1979, but not recertified until June 2, 1993.
247
s ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION 1 NO.: 99900334/83-02 RESULTS: PAGE 4 of 10
- 8. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and paragraphs 2.4.1, 8.1. 2, and 8.1. 3 of QCP I. P. 300 dated April.1, 1981, regarding previously identified cylinder heads:
- a. The inspector had not stamped and dated RSs in the. appropriate space for acceptable parts. This was evidenced by: (1) mo;e stamps than dates and (2), limited stamps and dates joined by a line. Examples by serial number are: E-71, H-11, G-50, H-34, and G-4.
- b. Initials had been used as acceptable evidence of in process inspection on RSs. Examples by serial number are: G-50, H-11, G-19, E-71, H-89, and H-60.
- c. A surrendered inspection stamp (QC 30) had been reissued prior to expiration of the minimum 6-month period. Records indicate that the previous holder left the company on September 10, 1982; however, as an example, the RS for Cylinder Head G-50 reflects its usage at Operation No. 170 on November 10, 1982.
- 9. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, paragraph 7.5.8.1 in Section 7.0 dated January 25, 1983, of the Foundry QC Manual and paragraph 2.6.1 and its subparagraphs and paragraph 3.1.2 in QCP I.P.100 dated February 12, 1982:
- a. Welding Machine No. 41 in Weld Area No. 3 (Foundry) had not been calibrated in accordance with the required 12-month frequency as evidenced by its displaying three calibration stickers which exhibited due dates of August 30, 1980.
- b. Heat Treat Furnace No. 5 had not been calibrated in accordance with the required 6-month frequency as evidenced by the meters and recorders displaying calibration stickers which exhibited due dates of March 13, 1983.
- 10. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix 8 to 10 CFR Part 50 and paragraph 2.2.3.2 in Section 2 of the QAM, the Manufacturing Manager had not assured adherence to the specified process identified at Operation No. 90 of the RSs for SNPS replacement cylinder head assemblies. The operation (hardfacing of valve seats) required welding in accordance with Specification No. 100-W-17. The NRC inspector was informed that the material reflected in that specification was no longer used and, consequently, a new specification (100-W-17A) was being used.
248
=
ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA r INSPECTION REPORT PAGE 5 of 10 g, : 99900334/83-02 RESULTS:
r -
- 11. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and paragraph 16.2.1 in Section 16 of the QAM dated February 27, 1981, _
assembly RSs for the cylinder head assemblies furnished for SNPS on LILCO P0. No. 310552-23 had not been retained by Quality Control.
- 12. Contrary to Criterion V of.. Appendix 8 to 10 CFR Part 50, LILCC P0 No. 310552-23 dated May 24, 1983, and Revision 1 to Specification No. SH1-89, the Certificate of Compliance dated June 28, 1983, for the cylinder head assemblies furnished for SNPS on LILCO PO No. 310552-23 had not been notarized.
g, UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
None D. STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
The findings contained in the report of the previous inspection (99900334/83-01) were not issued prior to the start of the current inspection and, accordingly, will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
E. OTHER FINDINGS OR COMMENTS:
- 1. Failed Rocker Arm Capscrew: A 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) report was made by LILC0 on May 4, 1983, to NRC, Region I, which stated that a sudden change in engine sound was noted by the operator during testing of EDG 103. After shutdown of the engine to determine the reason for the condition, it was ascertained by removal of the No. 1 cylinder valve cover that the intermediate intake rocker arm assembly hold down capscrew had failed. Examination by the NRC inspector of documentation pertaining to TDI failure analysis indicated that the failure had been attributed to a fatigue mechanism. Review by TOI on July 18, 1983, with respect to reportability under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 21, concluded that the condition was not reportable in that the failure was considered an isolated case and was the result of improper torqueing. The NRC inspector was informed that this capscrew is torqued in the field as well as at the manufacturing facility. Examination of Appendix IV to the TDI Instruction Manual ,
indicated that a torque value of 365 ft. Ib. was specified for the capscrew. It was additionally noted that TDI had issued a Service Information Memo (SIM) on July 26, 1974, which indicated the importance of compliance with specified torque values. Reissuance of this SIM was identified to the NRC inspector as being under consideration.
m
' 249
1 ORGANIZATION: TRANSAhcRfCA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/83-02 RESULTS: PAGE 6 of 10 The NRC inspector established that the capscrews had been purchased as commercial items and had been installed in all TDI engines. LILC0 was stated to have opted for installation of a new type of capscrew in the SNPS engines. After review of the available documentation, the NRC inspector concluded that the failure cause had been identified and that the generic potential could only be assessed by direct verification of applied capscrew torque in' supplied engines.
- 2. Seismic Qualification of Diesel Silencers and Exhaust Systems:
- a. During the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing on July 29, 1983, for the Consumers Power Company Midland Plant, it was identified in testimony that the mufflers / silencers furnished by TDI to Midland and other sites were not seismically qualified,
- b. The NRC inspector reviewed the applicable Bechtel requirements which had been imposed on TDI for silencers and established that the specifications did not include a seismic qualification requirement. TDI was requested to furnish an in line residential type Burgess Manning Model ACA or approved equal silencer with multicompartment construction to limit noise level to NEMAD requirements at 160 feet from the exhaust port.
Connecting piping for air and exhaust systems is supplied and installed by site personnel. TDI does provide, however, a seismic report which includes silencers and supports even when not required by customer specification. l
- c. The NRC inspector reviewed Perry Specification No. SP-750-4549-00 and associated specifications and identified that exhaust systems had been classified as safety-related and Seismic Category 1.
Documentation review at TDI indicated that the required seismic l analysis had been performed. One nonconformance (see paragraph B.1) was identified with respect to the failure to impose a QA program on the silencer manufacturer as stipulated by j the customer specification. In this phase of the inspection, the i NRC inspector reviewed the Gilbert Associates 10 CFR Part 21 j report dated July 27, 1983, concerning elevation of engine back +
pressure. TDI personnel stated that exhaust piping was not l designed by TDI and was installed by site personnel. From the l available information, it would appear that the installed piping l design may have a bearing on the high exhaust pressure. This I
problem is not considered to have generic aspects in that each ,
nuclear site has different criteria for installation of exhaust ;
piping.
i
. 250 l
_aLi i
ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED
- ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/83-02 RESULTS: PAGE 7 of 10
- d. The NRC inspector additionally reviewed specification requirements and documentation pertaining to seismic evaluation of silencers that had been furnished with EDGs to the River Bend and Rancho Seco f5cilities. The inspection established that TDI had complied with seismic qualification requirements.
3.
Missing Cam Gear Bolts: 'The NRC inspector reviewed LILC0 Deficiency Report No. 654 and the assembly and testing RSs for the SNPS engines. Operation 550 was noted as having been stamped off as complete by the QC inspector for the bolt installation. Subsequent examination at SNPS established, however, that the bolts had not been installed.
One nonconformance was identified as a result of this deficiency (see paragraph B.2.a).
- 4. Leaking Lube Oil Cooler Tubes Due to Improper Rolling: Review of available documentation indicated that the lube oil cooler had been purchased from an ASME Certificate Holder and had passed the required hydrostatic test and had been accepted by an authorized nuclear inspector. Examination of SNPS TOI Field Service Reports in regard to this deficiency identified an opinion that the leaking tubes may have resulted from a thermal shock imposed on the cooler during site EDG testing. The absence of site operational records precluded evaluation at TOI whether this opinion was based on actual knowledge that the EDG had been operated in a manner which could result in thermal shock to the lube oil cooler; e.g., operation for a period of time without coolant flow through the cooiar resulting in heating of the component and followed by a sudden resumption of coolant flow.
- 5. Piston Head Rework: The NRC inspector reviewed available documentation pertaining to rework activities that were performed on returned pistons from SNPS, Grand Gulf, and San Onofre as a result of issue of SIM 324, Revision 2. As a result of review of this documentation (i.e., P0s, customer specifications, external correspondence, and available RSs), the NRC inspector ascertained that RSs were not prepared for control of rework operations on the 92 pistons received from SNPS and Grand Gulf. It was additionally noted that Bechtel Specification No. 9645-M-018-0, Revision 4, required that records of operations, monitoring, etc., be retained for the rework of the Grand Gulf pistons. Review of Stone and Webster Specification No. SH1-89, which is applicable to the SNPS engines, revealed that Certificates of Compliance were required to be notarized. The failures to utilize RSs and retain required records 251 l
y
l
?o l
ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED f
- ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA INSPECTION REPORT RESULTS: PAGE 8 of 10 NO.: 99900334/83-02 in regard to pistoa rework operations have been identified as a nonconformance (see paragraph B.3). The failure to have the Certificate of Compliance notarized for the SNPS piston rework has been reflected in an additional nonconformance (see paragraph B.12).
Records examination confirmed that RSs had been prepared for control of rework operations on the San Onofre pistons. It was noted, (
however, that the QC operation acceptance dates on the RSs occurred after issue of the Certificate of Compliance and shipping of the reworked pistons to San Onofre (see paragraph B.2.b).
The above deficiencies are considered indicative of a direct failure of the QA/QC function to both enforce committed quality assurance -
program provisions with respect to manufacturing process control and to assure appropriate manufacturing compliance with the engineering requirements stipulated for this activity.
- 6. Field Service Reports and Personnel Qualifications: The NRC inspector reviewed field service reports that had been generated from 1977 to 1983 with respect to the SNPS EDGs. The reports were found to contain adequate information and a description of the corrective action taken to correct a specific problem. A review was additionally made of job descriptions for field service representatives and supervisory personnel to ascertain qualification and experience requirements. It was noted from this review that prior field experience is a requirement for these positions. During the inspection, a discussion was held with TDI management in regard to use of a formalized procedure for reporting to QA/QC of those field identified problems which related to performance of QA/QC activities during manufacturing.
- 7. Jacket Water Pump Shaft Failure: During a Vendor Program Branch inspection which was conducted July 11-15, 1983, the NRC inspector observed a memorandum addressing jacket water pumps installed on EDGs that had been furnished to LILCO, Gulf States Utilities Company, and a foreign customer. Requested information regarding susceptibility of the jacket water pumps to failure and nonincorporation of the SNPS modification at the River Bend Station (RBS) was not provided.
Consequently, this issue remained open. Subsequent to the inspection, it was revealed that EDGs of the same model had also been furnished to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.
i 252 jL
i ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED o
ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA r
REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/83-02 RESULTS: PAGE 9 of 10 r .
As a result of the query, an analysis was performed and a memorandum initiated. The memorandum is not in agreement with the failure analysis report (FAR) re.garding the cause of the problem. The conclusion of the FAR states, " Failure of the shaft was due to a fatigue crack starting at the small keyway radius. The cause of the keyway radius crack was cyclic movement on an improperly tightened impeller hub nut." The memorandum states, in part, "The cause of the jacket water pump failure at LILCO was attributed to be caused by a high amplitude torsional excitation of the water pump close to the pumps natural frequency." One of the actions to preclude recurrence was to change the impeller material from red brass to ductile iron.
According to a memorandum on the redesign analysis of the jacket water pump, "the change to ductile iron . . . increases the shaf t-impeller natural frequency away from the pump 4th order resonance . . . ." Another action to preclude recurrence was elimination of the impaller key.
The analysis resulted in a " Comparison of R-48 Engine Front End Amplitude of 4th Order at 450 RPM." The comparison accounted for SNPS and RBS but did not account for the units at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (RSNGS). The NRC inspector was informed that the data for RBS would also apply to RSNGS inasmuch as the units were essentially the same.
It appears that adequate engineering attention has been provided, but a similar level of manufacturing attention does not appear to have been provided. Regarding the jacket water pumps, the NRC inspector has not determined that: (a) different assemblers performed assembly tasks, and (b) inspections have been performed at RSNGS and RBS to ensure that assembly is correct. This will be reviewed during a future inspection.
During this area of the inspection, it was determined that the contract required the jacket water pump to be tested and/or analyzed. An engineering operating procedure stated that contractually required analysis and/or test would be reviewed, approved, and certified. The NRC inspector observed that certain calculations associated with the jacket water pump had not been certified; consequently, the nonconformance detailed in paragraph B.4 was identified.
253
y ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED
' ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNI A REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/83-02 RESULTS: PAGE 10 of 10
- 8. Cracked Cylinder Heads: LILCO filed a 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) report on April 15, 1983, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I.
The report addressed " apparent cracking in cylinder heads" in EDGs that had been furnished to SNPS.
The NRC inspector was informed that the only castings that are not produced in the onsite foundry are the housings for the fuel oil, lube oil, fuel injection, and jacket water pumps; also, no aluminum castings. Castings are not categorized as critical or noncritical.
It was noted that all cylinder head castings are produced for stock.
The replacement cylinder head assemblies furnished to SNPS on LILC0 PO No. 310552-23 were selected for review of process control requirements and implementation of requirements during foundry, machining, and assembling activities. Process controls appear to be adequately documented; however, implementation is less than adequate. Casting certifications attested to ths acceptability of magnetic particle and ultrasonic inspections; however, the necessary reports had not been initiated. Additionally, in some instances, the inspection checkoff list (reverse side of the Shipping Copy of the Foundry RS and Production Order) had not been annotated regarding accomplishment of magnetic particle and ultrasonic inspections. The RSs for machining activity exhibited: (a) uncertified / unqualified QC personnel conducting nondestructive examinations, and (b) inspection stamps that had been obliterated by correction fluid and application of a different inspection stamp. In the latter situation, reports of acceptable liquid penetrant inspection had not been issued for the dye checks;. consequently, it could not be determined whether the: (a) examinations were performed, or -
(b) obliterated stamps were simply restamped. Also, there were instances where initials were used where inspection stamps were required. RSs for assembly of the selected hardware had not been retained. Nonconformances identified during this area of the inspection are detailed in paragraphs B.5 through B.11.
In an effort to assess the effectiveness of process controls, the following areas were evaluated: (a) change control, (b) manufacturing process control, and (c) records. This area of the inspection was accomplished by evaluating the following documents for requirements and/or implementation of requirements: 12 drawings, ,,
15 specifications, 8 procedures, 2 quality manuals, 1 P0, 5 memoranda,1 letter, and numerous other documents identified as:
calculations, failure analysis report, casting certification, production RSs, foundry RSs, inspection checkof f sheets, and documents for packaging / shipping. The findings are indicated at other locations of this report. 6 %.
254
)~y/
- i s -
b
. OCT 0 31983
- D;cket No. 99900334/83-01 Transamerica Delaval, Incorporated Engine and Compressor Division
' ATTN: Mr. C. Mathews General Manager 550 85th Avenue Oakland, California 94261 Gentlemen:
9 This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. J. W. Sutton of this office on July 11-15, 1983, of your facility at Oakland, California, associated with the manufacture of emergency diesel generators and to the discussions of our findings with you and members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
This inspection was made as a result of the issuance of several 10 CFR Parts 21 and 50.55(e) reports. The reports pertained to: (1) incorrectly identified bolt material, (2) failure of high pressure fuel oil injection lines, (3) failure of jacket water pump shafts, (3) failure of a crankcase cover bolt, (4) unqualified isoprene material, and (5) deficient piston s ki rts. These conditions were observed singly or in combination at one or more nuclear generating stations.
Areas examined 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.
During the inspection it was found that the implementation of your QA program failed to meet certain NRC requirements. The specific findings and references to the pertinent requirements are identified in the enclosures to this letter.
This Notice of Violation is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. You are required to submit to this office 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 these items; (2) a description of steps that have been or will be taken to prevent recurrence; and (3) the dates your corrective actions and preventive measures were or will be completed. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
You are also requested to submit a similar written statement for each item which appears in the enclosed Notice of Nonconformance.
PS SC:R& CPS BC:VPB D: P/A JWSutton/lk IBarnes UPota RL angart y C7/83 ;' /41/,83 /83 Cq,}povs ['/3/83 m
A s c19 o % o y
I .
I Transamerica Delaval, Incorporated Engine and Compressor Division 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.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any information that you believe to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary that you (a) notify this office by telephone within 10 days from the date of this letter of your intention to file a request for withholding; and (b) submit within 25 days from the date of this letter a written application to this office to withhold such information. If your receipt of this letter has been delayed such that less than 7 days are available for your review, please notify this office promptly so that a new due date may be established. Consistent with Section 2.790(b)(1), any such application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the information which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a full statement of the reasons on the basis which it is claimed that the information should be withheld from public disclosure. This section further requires the statement to address with specificity the considerations listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4). The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, Ori ttns1 Signed Byn Uldis Potapova Uldis Potapovs, Chief Vendor Program Branch
Enclosures:
- 1. Appendix A - Notice of Violation
- 2. Appendix B - Notice of Nonconformance
- 3. Appendix C - Inspection Report No. 99900334/83-01
- 4. Appendix 0 - Inspection Data Sheets (11 pages) bec: "
! JTCollins, RIV RLBangart, RIV JEGagliardo, RIV TFWesterman, RIV MIS Section (J. Perry)
VPB Branch Chief VPB Section Chiefs VPB Inspector DMS-IE: 09 WLandon, IE
3 APPENDIX A Transamerica Delaval, Incorporated Engine and Compressor Division Docket No. 99900334/83-01 NOTICE OF VIOLATION As a result of the' inspection conducted on July 11-15, 1983, and in accordance with Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and its implementing regulation 10 CFR Part 21, the following violation was identified and has been categorized in accordance with the NRC Enforcement Policy (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C), 47 FR 9987 (March 9, 1982):
Section 21.21(b)(1) of 10 CFR Part 21, dated December 30, 1982, states, in part:
A director or responsible officer subject to the regulations of this part or a designated person shall notify the Commission when he obtains information reasonably indicating a failure to comply or a defect affecting . . . a basic component that is within his organization's responsibility and is supplied for a facility or activity within the United States that is subject to the licensing requirements under Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 71, or 72 of this chapter. The above notification is not required if such individual has actual knowledge that the Commission has been adequately informed of such defect or such failure to comply.
Contrary to the above, a director, responsible officer, or designated person had not notified the Commission in regard to:
- 1. Jacket water pump shaft failures on the emergency diesel generators (EDG) that had been furnished to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
- 2. A potential defect in the fuel injection line tubing that was used on EDGs furnished to Grand Gulf and San Onofre.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VII).
43p180%5 -
(p
6 4 APPENDIX B Transamerica Delaval, Incorporated Engine and Compressor Division Docket No. .99900334/83-01 NOTICE OF NONCONFORMANCE
. ~~._ .
.. Based o'n the results of an NRC inspection conducted on July 11-15, 1983, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in accordance with NRC requirements as indicated below:
Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 states: " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or i
drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished 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."
Nonconformances with these requirements are as follows:
A. Paragraph 4.6.2 of Section 4 of the Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) dated I April 30, 1981, states, in part, "when required by Purchase Order material received destined to become a part of the manufactured item must be accompanied by a Certificate of Vendor inspection. The material is then inspected to all applicable specifications utilizing Vendor Certifications . . . ." In addition, paragraph 4.1.1 of Quality Control Procedure I.P.200, states, in part, "when it is determined that product deviates from specification, an Inspection Report, Form P-249, will be initiated by the Receiving Inspector describing the nature of the defect."
Contrary to the above, the Transamerica Delaval Incorporated (TDI) receiving inspector accepted material on Purchase Order No. 45333, for -
which required mill test reports had not been received, without issuing
}' a nonconformance form P-249.
j B. Subparagraphs of II.A and II.B dated January 29, 1976, and November 10, 1969, respectively, of the Drafting Room Practice (DRP) requires:
- (1) drawing of layouts on tracing paper; and (2) a special title block on layout drawings with ample space for signat'ures in full of the designer and witnesses along with dates.
2 3
! S31eurp37l-VP - - _ - - - - . . - - _ - -
t 4 ,
. , ,. . . m . , . . -
. . .c . . . . .
Contrary to the above, the following layout drawings for the late 1982 redesign of the emergency diesel generator (EDG) jacket water pump had not been (1) drawn on tracing paper and (2) signed and dated: (a) 101973, (b) 03-426-08-AA, and (c) 03-425-10-AE (lined through).
4 C. Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of the Engineering Operating Procedure (EOP) 4,. ~
dated April 19, 1979, states, respectively, "The designer shall perform the necessary calculations, if required, and prepare the required design layouts.
"The designer shall sign, date, and submit the calculations which he has
. checked for completeness.and accuracy, along with the design layout as required, and his signed and dated form E-213, to the Manager of Design."
Paragraph II.A.6 dated January 29, 1976, of the Drafting Room Practice, 4
states, "Important calculations should be written in the proper notebook, maintained in the department files."
Contrary to the above, regarding calculations for redesign of defective EDG jacket water pumps located at Shoreham Nuclear Power Station:
- 1. Calculations for the first occurrence (1979) which are written in the proper notebook had not been signed and dated in the spaces
< provided.
- 2. Calculations for the second occurrence (1982) had not been (a) signed, and (b) written in the proper notebook.
D. Section 6 dated February 27, 1981, of the QAM, contains the following requirements:
4
- 1. Paragraph 6.1.1 states, " Documents establishing and defining processes and procedures pertaining to the quality of the product shall be controlled by the subdivision that has the initial responsibility of issue."
- 2. Paragraph 6.2.1 states, in part, "All documents relating to the quality of the product shall be reviewed by the manager of the
- issuing section or his representative."
- 3. Paragraph 6.3.1 states, in part, "All documents such as Engineering i drawings . . . must have a mechanism for identification, authority j of issuance and revision."
l l
l l
1
- ~ . , , - . , - - . - . . , , , ----n, ., ,,--n, .n---n.c..,,,-, . . - - ,,_ - , - - - - , . , , , __,,.,,-,,,,,,.n,----.---, --,_, ,-n-----------, - , - ,
_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . .. _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . ~ _ ~ . _ _ _
i
, )
I
< . . :, .. O.
.z.. .
. i, . -- .. . . . . .. -~.
Contrary to the above, "D Sheets" which pertain to quality of the product are issued by the Engineering Department; however, they are not reviewed by the manager as evidenced by the lack of provisions to identify the date, preparer, reviewer, approver, or revision. Examples are D-4986 and D-4956, which are entitled, " Assembly Instructions," and pertain to the EDG jac,ket water pump. It was noted that the latter document reflected'the release date, four revision levels and dates in the lower margin of the affected sheets.
E. Paragraphs 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 of Section 5 dated February 27, 1981, of the QAM, require that Manufacturing Engineering provide written instructions in.the form.of. route. sheets.. tooling shee.tse or.special written instructions, etc., to Manufacturing and Assembly Departments.
~
Paragraph 16.2.1 of.Section 16 dated February 27, 1982, of the QAM states, in part, " Manufacturing and assembly Route Sheets are used as records of in process inspection of parts, components, and assemblies.
All Route Sheets are retained by Quality Control as objective evidence of inspection acceptance."
Contrary to the above, route sheets for the assembly of the EDG jacket water pump reflected on Drawing No. 101973, Revision C, had not been retained by Quality Control as objective evidence of inspection acceptance.
F. Paragraphs 2.4.1 and 9.1.1 of Quality Control Inspection Procedure No. 300 dated April 1, 1981, requires that the area inspector (1) inspect, (2) stamp and date the Production Routing Sheet (PRS) in the space provided, and (3) stamp and date and enter quantity accepted in the i final acceptance block of the PRS.
Contrary to the above, regarding EDG jacket water pump parts that were manufactured during the time period when defective jacket water pumps were being modified:
- 1. Stamp and date had not been gntered at Operation No. 90 and final accept block of PRS No. 03-426-08-AE Water Pump Shaft which was processed in October 1982. Further, the quantity accepted had not been entered in the quantity accepted block.
- 2. Stamp had not been entered in the final accept block of PRS No. 101969 Seal Retainer which was processed in September 1982.
G. Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Specification No. SHI-89 dated June 24, 1981, provides the bidder with the option of testing or dynamic analysis of mechanical equipment for seismic qualification.
f
i e
. . . .. . . ..- : y .. . . . , e n . . . ....o.r,. .
.. . ..~ .v .:-,. - e... *v . . . . .
Paragraph 15.3.1 and its subparagraph 5 of EOP 1 dated April 20, 1981, state that the engine driven jacket water pump will be shake tested. The
" Qualification Statement for 03-425-04 Jacket Water Cooling Pump Revision" dated October 18, 1982, states, in part, "We submit that these changes do not have any negative effect on the seismic qualification of the subject pump . . " '
Contrary to the above, dynamic analysis or testing had not been conducted on the redesigned EDG jacket water pumps to assure that the seismic
- qualification had not been compromised.
H. .
Paragraph,.A.1 of E0P 7.date.d April.20, 198.1,.. states, in..part..,"This, .. . . . ,
procedure outlines those steps taken in accomplishing release or revision of . . . purchase specifications." Purchase specifications contain a
, space for approval.
Contrary to the above, Purchased Material Specification No. RL 019000 dated October 6, 1982, had not been approved as evidenced by the lack of a signature in the approval block.
1 I. TDI's 10 CFR Part 21 report letter dated June 23, 1983, concerning a potential problem with the isoprene flexible elements of drive couplings, states, in part, "a copy of this letter will be sent to each of the cognizant parties as listed in paragraph 2, no later than July 15, 1982."
Contrary to the above, the TDI notification letters to 10 affected i customer cognizant parties were dated August 18, 1982.
l t
I i
l l
l 1
n------
n~n ,y,--e.-,_ p .,. ,e ,- ,--e ,,- s_y, - .
ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT . . INSPECTION INSPECTION
' NO .i . S9900334/83-01 OATE(S)- DJ7/11-15/83 .ON-SITE HOURS: 81 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Transamerica Delaval, Incorporated
, Engine and Compressor Division ATTN: Mr. C. Mathews, General Manager 550 85th Avenue Oakland,. California 94261 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. R. E. Boyer, Manager, Quality Assurance TELEPHONE NUMBER- (415) 577-7422 ~
.PRINCIPA.L PRODUCT: Emergency diesel. generators. , ,
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Transamerica Delaval, Incorporated (TDI) has no current contracts for domestic nuclear emergency diesel generators (EDGs).
I ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: . vJ . N.16/#3 JUW. Sutton, Reactive and Component Program 06te /
% ction (R& CPS)
OTHER INSPECTOR (S): W. E. Foster, R& CPS R. E. Oller, R& CPS APPROVED BY: s b% ca '? A ~7 h ?
I. Barnes, Chief, R& CPS Date INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A. BASES: 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B and 10 CFR Part 21.
B. SCOPE: This inspection was made as a result of the issuance of several l
10 CFR Part 21 and 50.55(e) reports. The reports pertained to:
(1) incorrectly identified bolt material, (2) failure of high pressure fuel oil injection lines, (3) failure of jacket water pump shafts, (4) failure of i a crankcase cover bolt, (5) unqualified isoprene material, and (6) deficient '
piston skirts. These conditions were observed singly or in combination at ,
one or more nuclear generating stations.
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY:
Incorrectly identified bolt material: 50-400. Failure of high pressure fuel oil injection lines: 30-322, 50-206, 50-361, 50-362, 50-416, and 50-417.
(cont. on next page) l ' ___
~~~ ^
_gd %M 8
%Pf
1 i I 1
' ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA j 9
-- ' ' ~ - ' ' '- - * " ' '
REPORT- " INSPECTION -
NO.: 99900334/83-01 RESULTS: PAGE 2 of 14 I
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: (cont.)
Failure of jacket water pump shafts: 50-322. Failure of a crankcase cover bolt: 50-416. Unqual.ified isoprene material: 50-416, 50-417, 50-400, 50-413, 50-414, 50-424, and 50-425. Deficient piston skirt: 50-413, 50-414, 50-518, 50-519, 50-553, 50-554, 50-400, 50-401.
A. VIOLATIONS:
Contrary to Section 21.21(b)(1) of-10 CFR Part 21 dated December 30, 1982,-
a director, responsible officer, or designated person had not notified the Commission in regard to:
- 1. Jacket water pump shaft failures on EDGs that had been furnished to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
- 2. A potential defect in the fuel injection line tubing that was used on EDGs furnished to Grand Gulf and San Onofre.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement VII).
- 8. NONCONFORMANCES:
- 1. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, paragraph 4.6.2 of Section 4 of the Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and paragraph 4.1.1 of Quality Control Procedure I.P.200, the receiving inspector accepted material on Purchase Order (PO) 45333, for which required mill test reports had not been received, without issuing a nonconformance form P-249.
- 2. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and the commitment date of July 15, 1982, in TDI's 10 CFR Part 21 report dated June 23, 1982, concerning unqualified material in flexible drive couplings of EDGs, the notification letters were not sent until August 18, 1982.
- 3. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and subparagraphs II.A and II.B dated January 29, 1976, and November 10, 1969, respectively, of the Drafting Room Practice, the following layout drawings for the late 1982 redesign of the EDG jacket water pump had not been (1) drawn on tracing paper and (2) signed and dated: (a) 101973, (b) 03-426-08-AA, and (c) 03-425-10-AE (lined through).
- 4. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of Engineering Operating Procedure (EOP) 4 dated April 19, 1979, and paragraph II.A.6 dated January 29, 1976, of the
- I
' ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT' ' INSPECTION' NO.: 99900334/83-01 RESULTS: PAGE 3 of 14 Drafting Room Practice, regarding calculations for the redesign of defective EDG jacket water pumps located at Shoreham Nuclear Power Station:
- a. Calculations for the first occurrence (1979), which are written in the proper notebook, had not been signed and dated in the spaces provided.
- b. "' Calculations for the second^ occurrence <(1982) had not'been - -
(a) signed, and (b) written in the proper notebook.
- 5. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and paragraphs 6.1.1, 6.2.1, and 6.3.1 of Section 6 dated February 27, 1981, of'the QAM, "D Sheets" which pertain to quality of the product are issued by the Engineering Department; however, they are not reviewed by the manager as evidenced by the lack of provisions to identify the date, preparer, reviewer, approver, or revision.
Examples are D-4986 and D-4956 which are entitled, " Assembly Instructions," and pertain to the EDG jacket water pump. It was noted that the latter document reflected the release date, four revision levels, and dates in the lower margin of the affected sheets.
- 6. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and paragraphs 5.3.2, 5.3.3, and 16.2.1 of Sections 5 and 16, respectively, dated February 27, 1981, of the QAM, route sheets for the assembly of the EDG jacket water pump reflected on Drawing No. 101973, Revision C, had not been retained by Quality Control as objective evidence of inspection acceptance.
- 7. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and paragraphs 2.4.1 and 9.1.1 of Quality Control Inspection Procedure No. 300 dated April 1, 1981, regarding EDG jacket water pump parts that were manufactured during the time period when defective jacket water pumps were being modified:
- a. Stamp and date had not been entered at Operation No. 90 and final accept block of PRS No. 03-426-08-AE water pump shaft which was processed in October 1982. Further, the quantity accepted had not been entered in the quantity accepted block.
- b. Stamp had not been entered in the final accept block of PRS No. 101969 seal retainer which was processed in September 1982.
)
ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT- "
- INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/83-01 RESULTS: PAGE 4 of 14
- 8. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Specification No. SHI-89 dated June 24, 1981, paragraph 15.3.1 and its subparagraph 5 of E0P 1 dated April 20, 1981, and the " Qualification Statement for 03-425-04 Jacket Water Cooling Pump Revision" dated October 18, 1982, dynamic analysis or testing had not been conducted on the redesigned EDG jacket water pumps to assure that the seismic qualification had not been compromised.
- 9. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and paragraph A.1 of E0P 7 dated April 20, 1981, Purchased Material Specification No. RL 019000 dated Octo' v er 6,1982, had not been approved as evidenced by the lack of a signature in the approval block.
C. UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
None D. STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
- 1. (Closed) Nonconformance A (Report No. 82-02): The Quality Assurance / Quality Control organizational chart had not been updated to reflect changes in the QA/QC organization since January 1, 1982.
The NRC inspector reviewed the current OA/QC organizational chart which was revised on January 15, 1983, showing that the Nondestructive Examination (NDE) Level III examiner is no longer the Manager of Quality Engineering.
- 2. (Closed) Nonconformance 8 (Report No. 82-02): Kobe Steel Ltd. had not been surveyed at a minimum of once every three years as required by paragraph 4.4.3 of Section 4 of the QAM.
The NRC inspector reviewed a revision to the QAM, subparagraph 4.4.5, issued April 22, 1983, which indicates that vendors who hold current ASME certificates of authorization or Quality Systems Certificates need not be surveyed or audited. Chemical analysis of subject crankshaft materials were performed and the materials found to be acceptable. The NRC inspector was informed by TDI that they intend to perform a physical inspection at Kobe Steel Ltd. within the next three months.
' ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
~
REPORT ' INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/83-01 RESULTS: PAGE 5 of 14
'.3 (Closed) Nonconformance C (Report No. 82-02): (a) Component drawings released by engineering did not constitute the final instructions to assembly for definition of acceptance criteria for the governor lube oil cooler, and (b) instructions for assembly of the governor lube oil cooler had not been provided in writing from manufacturing engineering to assembly.
The NRC inspector reviewed the lube oil governor assembly drawing and verified that the location of the cooler was not identified. 'In '
addition, the parts list for this drawing was reviewed for content.
The route sheet now indicates the assembly drawing. TDI's corrective action commitments contained in the January 5, 1983, letter to the NRC have been complied with.
E. OTHER FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
- 1. Carolina Power and Light Company's (CPL) 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) notification report, dated January 18, 1983, identified that bolting material for the CPL Shearon Harris, Unit 1, EDG was not properly identified in accordance with design requirements.
The NRC inspector reviewed documents and correspondence between TDI, Ebasco, and CPL pertaining to this subject. It appeared to the NRC inspector that a misunderstanding existed as to whether the bolts and nuts were requested to be fabricated to AISI 4140 or ASTM specifications. The nuts and bolts were bought to the AISI 4140 specification which conforms to ASTM A193 Grade B7 chemical and mechanical property requirements. Specification CAR-SH-E-11, Revision 6, did not require ASTM materials to be purchased. TDI's letter of June 22, 1983, to Ebasco outlines this finding. This is not considered a generic problem.
- 2. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) report to the NRC dated February 10, 1982, addressed the failure of TDI to take corrective action on TVA audit findings described in TVA audit 81V-47, conducted December 1-3, 1981. Documentation and correspondence between TVA and TDI to date was reviewed. Reaudits have been performed by TVA to determine compliance to their findings. -
TDI had taken action to make sure that proposed corrective actions were implemented before signing off on the corrective action form. Documentation for compliance to this requirement was reviewed.
All outstanding items were closed out by TVA during a TVA reaudit.
TVA's letter to TDI dated August 24, 1982, indicated no findings.
ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/83-01 RESULTS: PAGE 6 of 14
'3 . Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) filed a 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) S report on April 20, 1983, with the NRC, Region I. The report stated that failures had occurred in fuel oil. injection lines to the EDGs that had been furnished to Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1. As a result of the documentation review' by the NRC inspector, the following conditions were fcund to exist:
- a. Three diesel generators were supplied to the Shoreham Nuclear Station for emergency power; :' - - - - ' > -
- b. A failure occurred to the high pressure fuel oil injector line during routine testing of Generator No. 102 on March 3, 1983.
The tubing was replaced and on March 5, 1983, a fuel injection line failed on Generator No. 103.
- c. Both lines were sent to an independent laboratory for failure analysis,
- d. A failure analysis issued by TOI dated June 24, 1983, concluded that the failure was attributable to the presence of a discontinuity on the inside diameter (I.D.) of the injection tube.
This discontinuity acted as a stress riser and combined with the line operating pressures resulted in the fatigue endurance limit of the material being exceeded. The report indicated that the discontinuity was a draw seam that had been created during manufacture of the tubing,
- e. TDI conducted a 10 CFR Part 21 meeting on June 27, 1983, as required by the Division 10 CFR Policy Procedure, to evaluate the findings and to determine reportability to the NRC. The committee determined that this problem was an isolated case and was not reportable. On July 5, 1983, another meeting was held which still determined the condition to be nonreportable due to the fact that many engines had been and are running with the same type of tubing that had been installed at Shoreham,
- f. The NRC inspector requested a search be made as to when the tubing used in the Shoreham Units was purchased and if other nuclear sites could have injection lines installed that had been manufactured from the same lot of tubing.
i ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT '
INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/83-01 RESULTS: PAGE 7 of 14
- g. TDI searched their records and found that the tubing was purchased in 1976. Purchase lots are made in 2000 ft.
increments with approximately 200 ft. being used per diesel unit. The record checks indicated that besides the Shoreham nuclear site, EDGs had been furnished to Grand Gulf and San Onofre nuclear sites which had utilized tubing from the same purchase lot,
- h. TDI Design Specification D-266 dated October 2, 1972, and Revisions A and B dated August 18, 1978, and August 15, 1980, contain the applicable requirements required to be followed in regard to tubing manufacturing operations. The supplier was required to furnish material certificates of conformance and test reports with each order. Purchase-documentation for this period of time (1976) was not retained by TDI in that the QA program only requires retention for 5 years. The NRC inspector reviewed a recent PO for tubing, No. 45333 dated October 1, 1981, for conformance to purchase requirements.
The PO required that mill test reports be furnished. A nonconformance was identified as a result of the acceptance of the material by the receiving inspector, although mill test reports had not been received (see paragraph 8.1).
- i. The action to preclude recurrence was contained in the failure analysis report, June 24, 1983, and indicated "more rigid QA procedures were called for. Sections from each length of tubing should be cut off, sawed lengthwise at 90* intervals, and inspected to ensure there are no draw marks on the tubing ID. Since draw seams would run the entire length of the tubing, this inspection measure will ensure that no draw seams are present in any line manufactured from that length of tubing (200 ft.). Such a QA requirement should be called for on any high pressure fuel injection line destined for use on a nuclear stand-by emergency diesel generator."
- j. As a result of the NRC inspector's review of documentation, consistency of drawings, procedures, P0s, letters, in-house memos, and reports, it was concluded that this failure may not be an isolated occurrence and that a potential existed for draw seams to be present in fuel injection lines of diesel i generators supplied to Grand Gulf and San Onofre. In addition, review of 10 CFR Part 21 evaluation activities concerning the fuel oil line failure consisted of side notes on letters and records, etc., produced by TDI personnel during Delivered Product Trouble (DPT) meetings. These were considered
)
ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
' - '"- ~
REPORT ~ ' INSPECTION ' -
NO.: 99900334/83-01 RESULTS: PAGE 8 of 14 as inadequate by the NRC inspector to establish the reason for classifying this occurrence as one of a kind. The violation
, detailed .in paragraph A was identifi.ed as a . result of this .
review.
- k. Subsequent to the inspection, TDI filed a 10 CFR Part 21 report with NRC. Headquarters. The report is dated July 20, 1983, and identifies the following nuclear generating stations
' with the potential defect:- (1) Shoreham, (2). Grand Gulf, and -
(3) San Onofre.
- 4. LILCO filed a 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) report on October 15, 1982, with the NRC, Region I. The report stated that jacket water pump shafts had failed on EDGs that had been .furn,ished to Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,' Unit 1. Further, the report stated that the failures occurred on jacket water pumps that had been modified to preclude failures that had been experienced in similar units operating overseas.
The following conditions were observed during the course of the inspection:
- a. The Engine and Compressor Division of TDI filed a 10 CFR Part 21 report on September 20, 1979, regarding "a potential failure of the drive shaf t for the engine driven jacket water pump which would result in engine nonavailability." The report stated that jacket water pumps of the same design as those that failed had been ir, stalled on the three EDGs that had been furnished to Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. The NRC inspector was informed that the jacket water pumps had been modified.
- b. A TOI memo dated October 18, 1982, states, in part, "In the past five months, Lilco [Long Island Lighting Company] has experienced three jacket water pump failures." Information presanted as a record of evaluation was included in open areas of a form entitled, " Authorization For No Charge Billings" dated 0 tober 7, 1982, and identified LILCO as the customer.
The following hand written / printed information was exhibited in the open areas: " Review 10 CFR 21 no-only site conditions at LILCO diff OK other plants not a 10 CFR 21 LILCO unique only site with this problem attendees [ list of names dated 10-11-82] LILCO is aware of problem TDI & LILCO will solve (signed, dated 11/11/82]." The information is not sufficiently detailed to enable an adequate evaluation of the decision regarding reportability. The failure of the jacket water pumps had not been reported to the Commission. As a result of the foregoing, the violation detailed in paragraph A was identified.
ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
- ~~
REPORT -
' INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/83-01 RESULTS: PAGE 9 of 14
- c. Layouts are created by redlining existing drawings rather than by initiating new drawings. The redlined drawings (layouts) had not been subjected to the required signature /date cycle.
Calculations had not been controlled in the manner specified.
- There was no indication that assembly instructions had been' '
reviewed / approved. Route sheets for assembly of the jacket water pump had not been retained; also, some route sheets for manufacturing activity had not been completed as required.
The foregoing, along with other observations, resulted-in the -
nonconformances detailed in paragraph B.3 through B.9.
- d. A TDI memo dated July 16, 1979, which addresses jacket water pumps, identifies Gulf States along with LILCO and a foreign customer. Requested documents were not presented regarding Gulf States; as a result, this issue will remain open in order to determine whether or not Gulf States received suspect jacket water pumps.
1 e. TDI identifies the cause as engineering and assembly induced.
The NRC inspector concurs; however, in his judgement, the quality organization cannot be excluded. Based upon the observations of this area of the inspection, it is not apparent that adequate corrective actions and preventive measures have been taken. However, the NRC inspector was informed that the pumps at Shoreham Nuclear Power Station have operated past the times of the previous failures.
- f. In an effort to assess the effectiveness of the corrective actions and preventive measures, the following areas were evaluated: (a) change control, (b) manufacturing process control, and (c) records. This area of the inspection was accomplished by evaluating the following documents for requirements and/or implementation of requirements: 12 drawings, 3 specifications, 6 procedures, 3 sections of the QA Manual, 5 memoranda, 7 letters, and 24 other documents identified as: analysis / calculations, packaging / shipping notifications, production routing sheets, qualification statement, material requisitions, authorization for no charge billing, failure analysis report, assembly instructions, and requests for drafting room action. The findings are indicated at other locations of this report.
- g. Subsequent to the inspection, TDI filed a 10 CFR Part 21 report dated July 20, 1983, with NRC, Headquarters.
)
'ORGANIZATICN: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
~
REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/83-01 RESULTS: PAGE 10 of 14
~5. Two 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) reports by Mississippi Power and Light (MP&L) Company to the NRC were filed on March 22, 1982, and April 21, 1982. These reports concerned the shorting of the generator by a-sheared crankcase capscrew head of a Unit I, Division II, diesel generator furnished by TDI. This matter was reported in several interim reports by MP&L with the most recent one being Interim Report No. 6.
- a. -During a 24-hour performance test, the unit tripped on a
" Generator Differential" which was accompanied by electrical arcing inside the generator. Later inspection verified that the stator insulation had been damaged and the head from a S/8 x 11 threads x 1 3/4" long capscrew was embedded in the stator.
It was determined that the capscrew head was from the diesel engine's rear crankcase cover. All of the capscrews were replaced by the utility, and an analysis of the failed capscrew indicated the head broke off due to low-stress fatigue cracking during service. This cracking appeared to have been initiated by over or under torqueing of the capscrews.
- b. Findings: Review of the problem with TDI's Grand Gulf site service personnel provided the following information: The source of the capscrew head found in the generator stator was from a top capscrew in the vertical crankcase cover. The screw shank was still in the cover hole. The screws are classed as noncritical service and require torqueing of 60 foot pounds (Ft. Lb.). Since the metallurgical analysis indicated a fatigue failure mechanism, the cause appears to have been over or undertorqueing coupled with operating stresses.
No information was available to indicate when this incorrect torqueing may have occurred. TDI service personnel indicated that the site Bechtel craftsman would have had a minimum of two occasions when they would have removed and replaced the crankcase cover for bearing checks after the diesel generator was delivered to the site. In addition, they would have had a TDI instruction manual which showed the required torque value of 60 Ft. Lb. for this size bolt while using a special lubricant. The TDI service personnel also indicated that this incident of a sheared screw head shorting the generator was a first time occurrence for the 1DI diesel generators. The matter was discussed between TDI and MP&L personnel, but no meeting notes were made available to the NRC inspector by TDI.
)
~0RGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT ' INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/83-01 RESULTS: PAGE 11 of 14
'.6 In 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) reports to the NRC by four electric utility companies, a misapplication of unqualified isoprene material in the flexible element of the couplings for diesel generators supplied by TDI was identified. This material was not suitable for use in the high temperature oil atmosphere of the diesel generator and would deteriorate rapidly in service. The couplings were manufactured by Koppers Company. The utilities reporting were: (1) MP&L for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; (2) CP&L for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,' Unit 1, (3) Duke Power for' Catawba Nublear
- Station, Units 1 and 2, and (4) Georgia Power for Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. This matter was also reported by TDI in 10 CFR Part 21 reports to the NRC on June 23 and July 13, 1982.
- a. The action necessary to correct this deficiency was to change out the existing flexible element in the coupling with one made of neoprene which was suitable material for service. TDI, in their report, identified 10 nuclear power plants which have affected diesel generators, and indicated these cognizant parties would be notified no later than July 15, 1982.
- b. Findings: The NRC inspector verified the following information through observations, discussions,.and review of documents:
(1) The incident which prompted TOI to report on June 23, 1982, was a failure of a coupling flexible element made of isoprene in a nonnuclear diesel generator. The utilities reported subsequent to the above date. The suspect couplings were manufactured by Koppers Company starting in 1977 and purchased as stock items by TDI based on TOI's purchased material specification for
" Couplings-Elastomeric, Part No. AK-007-000," dated November 11, 1976. The original version of this specification did not specify the type material of the flexible element. After the above failure, TDI issued Revisions A, B, and C to the specification in 1981, 1982, and 1983, respectively. Change A specified that the flexible element should be neoprene which is a suitable material. Change 8 specified service in a 175*F oil atmosphere, and Change C specified that the flexible element must have a 1/2 " wide red band on it to distinguish it as neoprene.
)
. ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED
. ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT -
INSPECTION ~ - ' '
NO.: 99900334/83-01 RESULTS: PAGE 12 of 14 (2) Review of TDI notification letters verified that all nuclear order customers with affected diesel generators were. notified of the deficiency. However. 10.of the TDI notification letters were deted August 18, 1982. This date was contrary to the TDI. commitment date of July 15, 1982, in their 10 CFR Part 21 report and resulted in the nonconformance identified in paragraph B.2.
-s.(3) Observation of a coupling flexible element in the stores department verified that it did not have a red band on it as required by Revision C of the purchase specification.
However, this flexible element was identified only by part number and it could not be traced to specific
, P0s placed with Koppers Company after April 25, 1983.. ,
(4) Review of receiving inspection cards, " Vendor Inspection Report," for Koppers Company, indicated that the bases for receiving inspection of the couplings was Mil-Std 105 D.
(5) Review of 10 CFR Part 21 evaluation records concerning the isoprene flexible element established that records were inadequate to establish the cause of the misapplication and the basis for the determination that the item was reportable under 10 CFR Part 21. The only records available were entries dated June 15 and June 22, 1982, in the DPT committee weekly log. The June 15, 1982, entry indicated Product Engineering was to compile a list of engines using Kopper's Elastomer GDV drive couplings, and the June 22, 1982, entry indicated that it was determined that the Kopper's Elastomeric coupling was a 10 CFR Part 21 reportable item and the responsible individuals were to issue the appropriate notification.
These OPT committee meeting notes did not provide sufficient information to show the bases for the evaluation (and do not appear to meet the requirements 10 CFR Part 21, paragraph 21.51(a) and (b)).
- 7. In five 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) reports to the NRC by three electric utility companies, a deficiency in the piston skirt castings of diesel generators was identified. This matter concerned the potential failure of the engine piston skirt castings of diesel generators supplied by TDI. Such failures would result in the unavailability of the diesel generators. The castings were manufactured by TDI between December 1978 and October 1981.
The utilities reporting were: (1) Duke Power for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; (2) TVA for Hartsville
ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR DIVISION OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/83-01 RESULTS: PAGE 13 of 14 Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, and Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; and (3) CP&L for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,. Units 1 and 2. This matter was also reported by TOI in a 10 CFR Part 21 report to the NRC on October 28, 1982.
, The NRC inspector ascertained the following information by discussions and review of documents:
.a.- The' incident which prompted TDI to report was a failure of as type "-AN" piston skirt casting in early 1980. The utilities subsequently made their reports to NRC. Subsequently, TDI produced a report entitled, " Failure Analysis No. 152, Piston Skirt, P/N 03-041-02-AN," dated June 20, 1983. This report included a description of events leading up to a change in.
foundry heat treating practice to include fan cooling of the castings. This cooling method was determined to have resulted in high residual stresses in the castings which, when combined with operating stresses, could result in failure of the castings. The report also provided recommended corrective measures including NDE, stress relieving at 1050*F, and selective grinding of the affected castings.
- b. Review of six TDI notification letters verified that all utility nuclear units with affected diesel generators were accounted for. The letters included a list of foundry shop order numbers and serial numbers of the affected castings to aid the utilities in identifying the suspect castings. The letters also recommended that the castings be returned to TDI for NDE and stress relieving if possible, or replacement with suitable castings, and return for reinstallation. As of this inspection date, only Duke Power Company and Gulf States Utilities have returned skirt castings to TDI.
- c. Review of a current process routing for Job No. 69501 covering reprocessing of returned castings verified that corrective action was being performed under controlled conditions using process travelers, qualified personnel, and procedures. Other records reviewed for Job No. 69501 consisted of: (a) special instruction specification No. 750R; (b) a certificate of compliance; (c) a packaging and shipping notification; (d) a magnetic particle inspection report; (e) an NDE technician's qualification record; and (f) heat treatment records for Iron ASTM A-536, Grade 100/70/03 castings. The review also
. )
ORGANIZATION: TRANSAMERICA DELAVAL, INCORPORATED ENGINE I.ND COMPRESSOR DIVISION i OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA '
REPORT " INSPECTION NO.: 99900334/83-01 RESULTS: PAGE 14 of 14 included the original master engine book of records for diesel generator S.N. 75018-2762. Within this area of the inspection, no nonconformances or unresolved items were ,
identified.
F. EXIT INTERVIEW:
During the exit interview, at which time the inspection findings were discussed, the NRC inspectors were-informed by TDI's management that - '
they would take exception to all of the violations that had been identified during the inspection. The NRC inspector indicated that this position would be identified in the inspection report. It was determined by staff review sub. sequent to the inspection to defer issue of one violation which.had.been identified to TDI management.until after performance of further inspection. This violation subject pertained to inadequate evaluation records.
. PERSONS CONTACTED I Company $wshmEftes %laual- lAtc . Dates Ti.L. //-/S-l'3 Docket / Report No. MODS 3Yf?3-of Inspector mLui S~it /w -
/
Page d of e
'lAMEIPlease Print) TIT 1.E(Please Print) ORCANIZATIONIPlease DrintI r, w. su As. -
. k s.clucp. u .s u re c .
CDwaRD C DeBetc F fowooy sens rr rar~u nr.e, *co on.om Bcaes 1. 3rr-
- A/u, far. Seses o o R.T. h een x c,eu Ars wnct - "
Ea 6 owe w ho c. - 4h "
Cdlih/ son y Mfa.Ma'r. .
cArnif L #l/LLS' s MGA. 'bu4ury EM5R.
t 'i 8, S fl647WCOT y WA E Gzu /bre n ,,
L.Woac *
?t~o e e t me c ~
R. Dnva kl. L. n & l]v ci k Cn n :m u n c
Cd.m n ,
S e re v i c e TD I l?.T'. n. uns s i o n n o e,r s
A ,n,l: t )
het ke:u 70 /
M lh LL. Suudo.y @ 5'apenviso r %wAivenik Oels pol .
^
.T.l.s1heitLwd. Vanc $*riu M + r
, A M ARehul & n ou& lWCneth n.
- _' p. .--
t .
5 k N N Q 1Ls Y M P e k ( C
w J f. I e
- M
.s EC CCI V '
c te l ~ %
.od s:u :=ve i 1lP* .as %.
-* n a
- 5 561 u u nl 7 0 0%)
kk u cy l k A 4 & n m + u Nl tnr 900
.e.J b b C ,1 C:
go e % v w g , k, j w a.- M tr a L eo , V I C O O -* ,
<# w *
- i M o i i J ,
o e,,
Q h4, $ N J 4 y J ' s Y Z J, M .e 3 o C .e n .. ~ , , s , ~ ,
Z, y
m cr c. u : ,
v') '
c '
t ' O y I C c h #O C o e
' w s : q A w <. s ~
gmroc o . . .
OeNMC
~
c.J
<, 5d 4 4* f .
. r.
m
~
- j 1 m c
.a t\ l 2 s
V v .
3 o .4, w ,
4 Z H v' a- *=
r U
w g i
< e s x
w e (-- (' e, ~,e >-
c a
m 4 y a m
W
- %x :. R D t ( 7 0 C
Z
=
7 4 E g ; 7 t, 3 (
C
~
m
& ~
- s O s g J L 8
o
$- s - 5 5 v 2, ; $
M -
7 -
W e
% : a_ -
L
% , (1 ?r I
- C 4
e (' %,
e j' N,.%
s ~e w
g e.
{
=
n' 5 "
u., w' . - ~ -
l* ,c - s. A
$ % L >
i s , e q, ._ - e --
so
( e t 6 a
., e w ; , i a= .-
i e , c, ' e + '( 3 N 4 2. Os a e w s s ct 2 .. e e o -
o .
, .s 'z o I '
'h 'do S ,
-- ,8 s.
2 s e
- t_
O N
' s I I o -o a o %
,j ecu
.= L cL
+ a I n uva o e
- y 4
, 4 ,A e - 2
- N M M
, ~ %
>' ,_ i u o .=
J 4 M ~
e 3 C UU
+, 4 A ~ &, h 4- 4 ~ o
~
o L o. ~ a o to e.
s M m m n
t m y
, #, 4
' 1- a o
o 8 -
N O *% 0 $ O h O Q & .)
g '
& & r." &
f s l I t t ) l i l l ~' 4m
- .t 3 a. o a ~
C L S- Q H
ed eT c 3 a mo-Q - . ~ -
- n n ,
C.
>,cn-=
U L FO
=
Q \o C
% ' & .=C .% c. "O 4,p to
- .8 3uvg 2' ~
O cmoo U
a s. c. s e g y aMCC
- o. o u '
y$
- 3. Q.
- - n r-t
+ 4 o r.s e s ~ *
.t
" 8,*4cie A U
= v i
- m
o V -
""a o
I e t EC CC
<>. I M QU C8 I
, r*q
- .* c.,
-3 wE*
56 U U **
- g, -O * :t -
70 C C3 a*
u in 1 's C'
=-
~' N 'd N
')
. ;) ,)
,,.s u % c C
g,, m (% y w J4 d O .,, on, is J rg g3, e, ,, i to p
C O O --
s #b me t>s ' I e a .* cvs f%
- I 3 f g 6
% . *** #\ M '4 m =
N a , ,,
e s a' # ac M to.
" .g .. m c) CJ *e n - s -
~, es
~
3 - 3 - - a .s ,,, ce m o. a. s -
4 8
f +
,a
~ 7 ~
- o m
- e C oxme a e r Ca c
~i i , ,', .,,,
- e. y
~ e,, .
~
o 3 n
, O . . .
y UeNMC
.~.
- a 9e
, _z . -
r
. .9
- =. O " "
- i- - - -> .(
. 2 c., c o
% ( e f e -.
~ .x
=:t r ..
,v. .)
e ~ 0 A ;
% .J -
-t :" -
s J m : C S %
s . % ~o
~ ... ~
> .; t- , z c ~ =
f ~ t 4
~
d '
- s 1 :
- o -
- ~'
c s !
~~
- . ;; 1 a.
o 3 i i .;,t,
, 2 q- :::- '.o - .
e w v 3 o (
u y N .a
, :-:!; e 7 s o
r 5
'd N 6 .,
( R - f w c o ,.
==J ,s o -
& L g '"
- N
.i. v -
c,, ;, %
[
i . 2 . 6 y o o e-E x
c2 Y. r Aw ,i ..
i , b, j r
~$,a .
b w a , .':< L , ,
c
., g ,
rn m f - r 4 R '.; ,
.,-e
% t
. >~
LLJ e '
w q C g D . ,'v s g j-
= J ,
s (
.,,f ,t .. -,
d
.<- - ) t & -
~~
e [ . - c. ,,f '
~
M
.. .i (
s a H , ,,, t 9 -e.
. g tJ 7 '=+
P%
I ;.,,, Q, =*g: .
- j h"*
] f t
t =J
.m
'C o .a. t ,- e t r ~3 .* ,. ~p k t V
a , . - v D 'e' =%,
a a,t ( o f ( O E
- 3 .
- - ;
J v
~'
s ~c o
e
- l E c.
e c
. 't n 1
w iJ >w S '"' ,J. I H
g 0 I { ~
g g as as ** 4 -J w 8 3 l 4 h cp C a: 4 r '
8 ==, t V y f d 3 .,
= 9 d '
t
~. q ~-s. * 't ~~ ~
3 .n, Q, y l p w ' W i U 8 i '
6
~
q ~ ; $" 3 ,
- L, e c o .-
}
4 - 4 E k s 4 9 f \
'E- 'F f- k
,,,, f 7 o,. se .
g j e 5 ..
o C e
.l . . .;.
.. , w) 1 16 e . .( . ~p. if:. . .J u7 ,.e4 c't d ; .
d c
1 ', S( %
M C L i
4 L: A -
d -
g s -- g v s
s =L eL l % d -
- k 2 q i e U Ud C c
'- 4 y 7,. ~
\
g o I
'r ,.
b t;
S *
~
~~1 .
- \ \ L u a .C
\
' %'e ~ *g' c # C '3 s
a su 3 C Uu
- q O J . l '9 ,,, g p., 8
( CL >=* J Q y'# q 9 I f=1 *h ,,*
, d 'p sio '@ 'k 2 u N '43 R' ** .; fs . r ~?
y .{ ( ( . . . .
- . a.* e - - %' o 4 Cb n.
4 D
- '- g sn w r~. cc n,, n% o
.. w y
.*. r - 6 .
o .. - -
l / .<
- E e
k k 89 k 50 k' N ( Ad.. d t
r
- C
& t . O 8 . M M i ) O r0 0M
( k( U
- ' f9 ,Y @ D b C U L M
,s...
. .N f ph cw CD-o 3e 3
& e .= w t,.J r0 (p
M 3U U%
3 m -
C ro CJ O U L C. L st" 3 E Q m C. C.7 L t 3 O O U .
a T. t ,,, tm e. *o .,,.
4 f., t 's J s v n a ~ a o * *
- u % -
% . s ev % % y ev N N % e, ~ y % 5 C."NM*
Gb 03 C. . .
O. ( '
o o a O U i
.-. M
. we O
o ') w % a GC Cl ava.
- m, ]
3 6 h'w wE:
w r a %
oe%- ,. o - ovu5 .s
- o o- l T, 'A ,,
o 4 moo m7 I C y y a d w w a j, a d ,s~
N, $ g , f '5 w w i a, et
. s,.o- u
, e.,
~
6 ,. .;. x a w e o o-.
as o u u,a . * ,
o . ., ~ .
~ ~
, ^ - a ,,, ,, . ,
xn ., ., .. o o es .
m . , ~. .
~
,. i g s -
e eexe, e, c. s :
es = ,,
e o e ,,
~
T y EMroc
~ ,
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ - o
, o . . .
. O e.- N M 4 1
a s
f .N
.! . 3
- u j < .
- w n ~
- ~
< e
. 2 0 3
4 2 o
o o a -! o
- r e , e w ^
= g a
2 w o
q i
o
- , u
~ a o z w , - ., _, N -> d. ~
x e
~
- 1 . .
47=.
w -- f .,
w m
a y .-
.i . .
- g ~<t m
o v
e,.
4 m s , a~ v. i r w ,J , 2
~
o , .
y
= a , q 4 -
m - - ; ,.4 s ~
, s ~
w t- %v
-- v d
c f u t o ,
v R ,.
S
~ m >
d>-
- H q s-s . 3 s*2 *u y ~ ' 6 ts
.L.
8 a
7 c c 4
,f_ a-3
(. - 8 A rs %
1 w
a.
e
- > .1 -
. r.3
~' a s u , e a q m
+
s
-. ,' %.3 .;
i.
e m ( 1 e c
~ ~.
g ':::- o r a
s a z 'y , -
R "3 -
=. 1 \ 4 w s
] s
. '" I $ .1 g
\ *."
N o
- , c I
.$w ;4 3 c-1 't7 -
d % e .l', .<.;/
i ?
~;
o O
.a
\ >
r, 8 .t e a e v e i i
> os ur c
a 4 ' i i
=
j -
2 . s. 2 .s.
1 8
% o e ,.. . . , .i .
, ....y,. ~
.. .p ( ( .
,. . g ,, .v i..(.
.. (
v o 3 f ecc d v J
) $ ( 3 ,N' 4h.,
' L l g 9 EL CL
- p
, e
~
L
.g U CJ d C.
- s. u a .=
c .a a, r >-
l u et i .n oea~
t ..
. 7 '
4 as ( ( l c sc
.c. d -
u .a; ; g e ( l l \ (
.. a ,
r , ,, . . . .
.v k
- Y
, , 9 , j w e r e:
f ) J f ( l c 4,/ 2 d d e$' ,d [ 1 'R s -
b e O .O 1.. m 4a 1
GJ e Ge m m G UL e
- m ' es, e- a . c
&w..C.m.%.-"3o o
'*~.
(g 9 C cs to
. 4.8 3UvZ 9 a amuo e e c. c <
3 E O M C. o L "O 3 O O U e a g q j g o N
- v k J A E O . . .
f , e %
U N r"- m q ,5 e m ,. 4 W + d-V 'i'4 $ O "" f N O Y u a
- 3. C. [ .
e o l C U
--. M
s ~-
m.
.. . . y w
. a a C.
ij u
' s . e EC C-
- so o c; e
- s. l .G aE=
o as % m56 sqo uu.,
oa 4 m
- 9OO
'S
. u =,e.
\ e- ,
w .s S q - C w " m
.v M ,, aut o A **- le coo-at 4 *L'e0 N 3 n s e
- W q 8 8 ', % . . Gb m c; c .e y g Q MN m .a h 9' A ^
m C" C. se >
.t e N N " * *
= CJ A to 0
. . , ~ T' i 8
L;
~ esa E M r o ce
- ~ ~ ~ s # ~ C o . . . .
U-NMV O
e a e
< -,c
< "'1 .
O t
%
- N Q
w
~
J 4 x(
i & N l-e
~ G f 4 l w- w o -
k x
""J c:3 s'
O ^
N ) e W D =
m N .% [
m .
N k,
. .M-- w sk .
i g
(
- m 2 z a s bd C ,uk o, % t.,n S
& N j ( ' .{ 0 $ Y m g 7 m a
.: f ? w %
i c: J -
- o a
(
d==y T
& t%
Y 4
k u
,; b '
d i #
i !
O w
c
) .d 3 'o 4 ( { D E
i - l ~ l .' - . ~1 b,
A LO g - 3 m 4 \, c) E -
9, I 7
3 g t.g '
,:s cJ u 8
(g g . %<,
v 6I c>
a = q O CL I U '%. g .,Z an " ^
%' .c % .. .
47b e ==,,s*
& % O
\
% s , [ to C L I
N). q*H Q:(
'.'- % ,, \ .= L UL U aJ u o j
D l 3 ~ L & M .=
c r~,,
4
~X e g J
, j q,
4 3 C U *=>
A"JO
- ?
W*
k N
--i 1
.( ~
s 0
,V g
f k
- t c
% " w[ '
]
g
.a
( $ Q, '4,J W N C 0 y
- C
.,~ Q Q, ~
.. .e=
u m
3 e no-(a :
s
~ w a
uum a &, cn C- C=
C% =
Q
\
- M .
l
- 'ca to w3uuE 3 -
o -
Cmoo o L c. i <
3 E Q M C.'. CT
% 'O 3
($ o u ,'
u ke y D 4 m 9
- v v
v 4
n f
J A
r M
a Q Nmv C. c6 , *
+ k :) i C U '
e W
---. ---~.. '
Y geg,,n L Ho,Q Scope /Hodule /://W fc' 5549.g7,;gf7' / I'd!!" . /.. O I M..
00CilllENIS I.XAMillED i 6prcre w /~thc rp .
I 2 T i ll.E/SUll. LECT 3 4 l $ ZYa9E9in.e/~kn jederez ./_.ZM. fTaf) <///sf /rnren1ft> Z4sfvv<beu .. _ _ _ _ . . . .
O n, cal'p3res P -c -c/ F-Ed. . ___
_.3-2_ _ _
2 '8 ' TAI L ..f Awsissinn; ngrr r t,cJ/ A censw# ads s&&
ccp/ /
/' / .__
e d M r_e i n /n p- Mp SG/t/S /nsp p h r ret s c p S c r r i v (q j /o r p ,/ s' f-/7-82
-~
w Document Types: .
Columns:
-1. Drawing 5 Purchase 0rder .
- 1. Sequential Item fluml
?:. Speci fica tion ~ 6. Internal. Memo 2. Type of Docimient
- 3. procedure 7. Letter 3. Da te of Document Ottier (S~pecify-if necessary)
- 4. . QA Manual 8.. 4. Revision (If applica
- ~ ~ - - - - - '
lh poit lla..Q.7, Scope /Hodule 74I//rn n' /h,/2/ ,fegrT 00CllMFills f XAMillED V ~ n f ^
~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~^ i
_j,,,,/&,,,,4f& &cy, ;A &cf '
1 2 TilLE/SUBJfCT 3 4
. ___/_ # 7)Z 's. 9%.6kuar/, Akv.2. -9_offcli%cvr Sr-Yltcirs g g/f f /6 6-sc:-g .__l-.
2 7 TJ Zj. Jg sw/in ir/ Zeff,.-r yf.7fy s ,pcp g n 9 p_, ,py-/7' _
s/47'Pc/ G- 2 r -g2 , -> ,g>.ga_ A.'A .
, __ 3' '7 7).Zk //c7S sTr//2/ xv7'/Rcafiost feYers k._fr> _
ec s&s>rres cen re rnik e & s,ane ri r eccw//de- de'&c-f
- s-AP-/2
~
'/ 'f ///M1 PS ef' 7~/32 % '"A h7 " fe mssri?Ye TMNb _ . . . . . . . __
J2ne sf_e c/22./ff2 - ...._. '___
5 3 7211 "Dn is-Josr is# c FA' 2 / /2 //Eu " rerevi ,,>trn=cdre /-2c t's C ~2 7)Z 6 ' s%rcj ssp / ffs)(>rsa/Swchfi ca fier>r *
sr dcy/s' s -E/<sfemeriVfL~r keri Ab. AA-oG7-cMI s //-76*-W S . h.
7_ _
-l Tb 2_h. . [An /?c P AA7llfes A D,_1( C & /Ar <</ww SyfriftenL .
tur/cx_s /s'd..
/ . 747_ '> . '~.'W b
/
ler .ZHsssec fh fy r7i-fcrit 'ipp.yjecho4 _ . . . _ . . ..
7 $
&cer/cdrc/ fer * /%/>oers G->ns~ifc ownqs) ~~~ _ _. _..
TAf r>ur e ir c S r er/a a
ors _e>db l Tyher.s _{]~yw',
Fe/Yns a'sf__
l /
r<r ce p /i7 a,, /r/erMA- e/en, s{'
+ /te. / 3/f5
- /?cr. /27 38 - /i'c'- k. 12 2 '/6'
_ man' /'d // 9 2 G 3' JGl'/C '5 N Document Types: Columns:
- 1. Drawing 5. Purchast' Order 1. Sequential item ihmn
- 2. Spec i fi ca tion ' fi . leiteriial Memo 2. lype of Document
- 3. Procedure 7. l_eLter 3. Date of DocumenL
- 4. QA Hanbal B. Other (Specify-if necessary) 4. Revision (Il aPPlir.
.) : l i
l
- ' i 5 y$
- h,__'. .
.s i
. ; i .
- g ;
15 i as-
- j4lS, !q!4!
l . .s
'5% $ {g ,li j .' lD t ;
$55[
,: ' ., ~
.m s
. i i 8
! I t
i i8 I
> j
.i ~==[ ,.
,o - .
Ik i i
N
!'i l o. N. i, l.h, [# '
,%'l
! IN -
!'
- s.i.
,: t ?!
. t ,l
- i. , sl i ,.'
- i
-.2
===-
n! \ I t g l' \ f
$,3
.~ : .l 4 4 1 4 4 k 4 si guae s s _ .=
gN E c'd M E t
o g g
- $, . N '2 D R , ,{
r d
k[n s k h 4 sc M s!M c
s .. t a 4 2
[x x t ., k.
is s f v
i -
M s
m Nx
?
y 4
r q u
% w<
A
, h ie
- N k
e u.
t
)e
-y
)
tx s w N N
- A p%' e w e ty w3 Ha ,a s e
x 3
g !
m ~t e A~
e q s.
t 6, t ss x . s N, 5 yN.'
i
.t QE g C j ( b q
4
%. g .*y %.t xi -
d4 WS e q b 8
a '
ag
.=
3 et B G p) q ) s*.g(
R h'Q s 2
)9
~
m, '4 .+, .s h s
x .N kqt th.vsi gk .. w !
w g'%
s e s x m
$ D <t D g Q t b g r!
Q s T i }Ng jw AS1 .<
G $
s 4u [k 'S $ 3d -
't S ta f w .
- n. . ,
f .y, y% q q'.$M (
. g ..ge Q.Q a ..
?!
. -e.= 3 e
' %. k.
m&. u.
j,NI : /..u w Q e N w x
' s ,v.
. 25t_
tj4 6 .
d.4 %, v shq sJ y Q . $ .hi s,, s 03: 1 j.f.Xg1%q9f(k.h.isl(3x!
. ===.
x i
r e .gI w q
- T~ '-"o h s -
'd (
'd 3 f( .f.y .
.j.g g g
, y e
u n x N A 5
C-3d f g;' _3 8 % s %v n s w ggj; I
t I
cmy o
=z u 3 I t . -U L LL<
g O
) l f C D L .~*
\ b k = 0 'ed h 8- f a i
Inspector 3 w Su//*v- kh'tr H$ ~b.~o /
- Pag 2 / of I
- Scope / Module 94 70 1 ,
DOCUMENTS EXAMINED
\ ?Dil* '
t 9 2705,,
TITLE / SUBJECT 3 4
! 1 ~2 l 1 4- oru=ual-D eL +>- 1- c-r3-
+ -zi-V3 j z 4 mia -o ILu 44 </.r 3 1 A)O leQ MO 9 -t'l-ti
~
4 0 fods $d o2 vic-oz-o/ o -r- 11 510 i
} s' ') ZL to. Mb A4- kJa, Ifa
' ~
j -
& B (%i4 endM- falV sto .o 3 .vio -as -#x '*
j 2 % dal 15J Vwsd- FGS cefu si V 9 ~
ks d Te d IP L b b k l - 2-n-H 1 4 6/w B-lAs,J Q m /W 4 & .
ID 5 Po 4r 3 3 3- 0 / '
tI 4 Jiedura 4- Ma soM - L -zi ~ 9/
l IL 3 fmL 1 p , oE .ch ~ >/Eu'w Hisp. ' ' '
Y- i,ei
\ l3- 1 Dea w Esa.aLJa - Afo' 'W 333 l' I4, 8 ku$ WTUW 9'/ V - b] - l2-t-3-E/
1Y 1 *bfk -toI. I-Ita- r2 -
Ih ') Ti lt ~ Tot i- z-+ z-n- a T(A - TDI s'- i r- r 3 (8 ]* TIfA - TDI. i,- 2 rfz -
Document Types: .
Columns:
- 1. Drawing S. Purchas Order 1. Sequential Item Humber Type of Document
, 2. Specification 6. Internal. Memo ,
2.
- 3. Procedure 7. Letter 3. Date of Document
- 4. QA Manual 8. Other (Specify-if necessary) 4. Revision (If applicable) l 9
l p- )
c f r i
" e b a
y, & c,.
b a
s i i c
H l
' / ttp
- mnnp y
o . 4 LW e eeea t mm
{ M I uuf l oo(
ccI g o B L U
3 2 - 0 0 2- 9 f / S-1 2-2 G2 ' i ADD tffo n
r>- f~ J 4 42 - %- -
d f - fa f~ &
r
/ - nooi e
- ueei s
t' - - 2 T-3 - i- / 4 2 1 +
/
I
- 6 - t- Z 2~ -
sqptv neyae mSTDR 1 2 2 t /- 2 1
2 I P- L- 6
/' / i I I I a l
- 1 i
l u
o . . . .
C1234 4
C d '
l n
E t
D E ,~ A 'M N T
-~ J I
M C
E n - .
i A
X E
J B
U
% l d J y 1
0 S
T N
E M
S
/
E L
T I
a.
2
. xS k a
(
1 s-.
m rd 3
2
/
]'
W s 0
8/
)
y r
U T a C
O D
m r'-
= m e
4-w M -
o O s s
e L 8 u G U-3 c 2 s t
n e l0 i l n H v/
n 6-M 1
/ 1 6
h 3 3
/5 t.
m ro f
i f
y 4
o 9 .
$ ./~ W em i s c i
' . de
'l. / N l 1 .
n t
v s
- /
ro 2
.O rM :. p e
a ?/ ))lAeMM
)
ls h %
S b 7 1 & m - l sa (
5 s / T anr 4 e & S&9 / fEK d /
r lr c / &
B u # hrer cete Y c h a .
o.
9 ! '
1 "
v . O } $lc I }$} fL rtth unet
. PILO d
/
/
e N
o m s s P J M
E O ko
- %BE ~/
L
/
7)
+r. M d L i
L C O $c T B T r T W
'l l
f.
l f /.
/ c / f / /
D e b D h f
Ti f . . . .
5678 u n f o ro :
s i
t e ael v 7 . . p cra 2
r )'
B 1 )
')
) 3bh6 a
- y gi u u A U 9 2 )!
' Tnfdn Ts he 9 r 2
twccM naeo erprA iiea l u mDSPQ r u d c o t M o 2 3 y
% 9 o 5t 32 4f (, o . . .
D1234 n t L
- n. ?c a B 8 n >r 3 ')
c / 1 1 s$ e e
- p s
p e a 7c $ $ - * ~
^
n c I S
,l i!tlI;l <
Inspector _y_W/q//od $'f,[N $,',- [g[ 7 j Scope / Module _f2.7#_[_________._.. """ 0010 M S p igED 1 2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3 4 _39 4 budssio?.locflat P% " >^D I - _ . _ _. _ . . _ . . _ - l'
. 3h ! TDI f e : L y r i A 4 M tl W s Opf _ .__ k-Z v4 3 31 .I Awm /Q og. _ _. _
'1 4- 18 NM NO-Y' A f __ i -1 Hl_ . . . ?1. . . .
^ __ _
_it L Y. l'af /5;rg. Sh n_kw .}1em_q - fa-t -9 (. _ ___ .____.
+ 1- S IMD1 Alo W'3 33 _
g-tPt o 6 O L beoM Du c.- D - )(s(s
- 44. -B on/er T -
Greea 7%4% de- //-1 ; Y( Y WJ -
'l' . _ _
Mall h !!, ~L _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N l U - M N? f0/ - __ ___ "E.?.~l._ . . _ _ . - _ _ . . . 1 Document Types: Columns:
- 1. Drawing 5. PurchasDrder 1. Sequential Item Numlier
- 2. Specifica tion 6. Internal' Memo 2. Type of Document
- 3. Procedure 7. Letter 3. Date of Document
- 4. QA Manual 8. Other (Specify-if necessary) 4. Revision (If applicable)
)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOWY COMMISSION PamCanmSPECTOatseme acsiG avmee at.en;
.NRC ii4i, FORM 798-
- E uC OE.n INSPECTOR,S REPORT fggep, fymeg g,y ,
Office of Inspection and Enforcement A gmy , "" INSPECTORS R OLLe e. UCEN$tE/VEN00n inA AI I DOCKET NO. is e,t 4 04 LICENSE PE NO (Sv PAODUCTit13 o9ts, NO SiO MO vm h yj L M g rLg &h, ~
$ $ Y O U b 5 Y $ 0 l "
y % r m w h-h . " - "*'" " l D - CELETE I I m - REPLACE D 9 2 14 16 18 PERCO OF INVESTIGATION /WSPECTCN INSPt; TION PER50AMED sv ORGAN 12ATON COCE OF REGChmG CONDJC' NG ACTIVITY (See IEMC 0530
- Manpower Gew:-
FAOM 70 i 1 - REGIONAL OFFICE STAFF gg y, ggg .. gg ,
~
lOTHER MO DAY YR MO. DAY vm 2 - Rest 0 TNT INSPECTOm AEG ON }viSON BGaNC= 01 'l iII fl3 O!') (15 Ol3 8 - 'caFoau^ Net ^Pra^'5^' TE** 4 i 0 i 8 as -.
.c '@'.N . -21
- ,-r s- ..; w -
32 33 i 34 l 25 REGIONAL ACTCN TYPE OF ACTrviTY CONouCTEDiCaect one Don Omyi 02 - SAFETY 06 - MGMT Vi$lt 10 - PLANT SEC. 18 - INQg.a v i - NRC Fo#M Set 03 - INClotNT 07 - SPECIAL 11 - WytNT. VER is - mvtSTIG ATION 3 - REGCNAL OFFICE LETTI A 04 - ENFOACEMENT 08 - VENDOR 12 - SMiPMENT/t>IPORT 05 - MGUT. AUDIT 09 - MAT. ACCT. 13-iMPOmi
.,;.,,,Jy'. k ht*<- N M U w A N
M%M 8'* * ' "5 *. * ' T * #9 ' T ' ' * * " **M -
A5FKT6GN aN vt 5T.G ATiGN FMAG5 ENFORCEMENT CONFEntNCg atPCRT CONTaiN 2 790
'C**"'** TCTAL NUMBE A trT ga os ageO avisaN$M.v'4 Dav{ !
A OF VCt.ATICNS AND nnD
- O*M^ YON 8 C D DiviATONS ,
NaC FORM 591 af roast SENT { i - CLtAn ""'4 'C ' 'C" LETTiniS5v10 ( 1 2 - VCLATION ACTION 3 - CEvtATION A_ l8 C D Al8 ClD A 8 C 0 uO. DAv vm MO l DAv l v4 y ) 4 - vlOLATION & DEVIATON lg, , , l l 1 - TES t - YES l D $3 Q,l l l l l 3b:j
.k.f[,.i.hh 3 dd? N I [ ' . 'li " I 82. . 43 54 se 50 SS MOouts iNFOaM ATiCN Mooutt $soavatioN *C.
_Ca 5 MOooa hum.,. SP ue I ==u Rf 0==P 4% on.i " " " " ' " " " '
.s e .
=="*".*'a*5* % o_o y f5 . . }. > n - 1E- . t- 8 if! f ,
!! !!!! ! !E ! ! ! !!
s 'i 2 3 0hlot3 l6 ' o i ci3 i i i liil. . i liiI^ i i i i i liil I t t t ! II I l ' I I f I I lt t ! C t I I f f I I t I t f f ll f ! C I t t t i i ! f f f I t l f i l . h %tl'hoilla^ oio,8 i , , IiiI. , t ll i I^ i i , , i i i , I I I t t I l i I l t I f f I l I f t f I t I t i I f I i 1 I t t t t t t t t t t t t I t i lblOh CdC i i i l1 i le i i li l
^
i i i i lt , l 1 1 I f f f i I ( f f I l ll t I t I t I t I I I f f 1 i ! t f I I t i f ' I t ! l I I t ! ' I I I I f 1 t i l i t
- i f I a l f I l 1
t l l 1 f 1 I t ! I I I f I t ll1 l t t t I t i f f I f f I I l 4 C#CLE SEOUENCE is I I , A A79N Qa ;[via'fs _0 , , e i __ , f , , f a
- , 8 8
I kT
- Q\D
)
- anceow m A m e,uo .epon u utr % uesa lpj;g no isv paco .,,,,,oau cima,ceust a m ,'o _ sgo. ggggr)ggg INSPECTOR'S REPORT 44 4 0 0 3 3 4 I F 3 o'/ *
~
**'*' 55 " : ci vyc ' yM!c (Continuation) ' , a 3 . s , 4:
Office of Inspection and Enforcement C
~
n p [e:L a_ 1. VOLATION On DEytATION Water up 10 JW G efers Mr secM treR # fM M NMd8 N WW. W W M M8W7 M pacM8M M4 WS M MMWrers mes ) 2 ht dri] tdf. 3
, l9 0 Y %Y Ol> $/ {N{l] M lOOFA 2 /
, dhi %'k2 So tes 2 . a. dWW mm
- s. d A dh kM
,. L M o-t 5,% m a f m "
# U y .
b ^ 4M an.J At?Ll%'1 =^!i
'a B . A s h h h A l l A M s & -r d ,' -
A w in s ~ r m a c h . s h i w -
,, BL N s_ D= - M,-_.- .
< M % % =&d
.a .=
14. i
Aso A e di>= 0 bwk rk drg, w kJ% awnh!+'i m . ~
Y /2 6. Dr' s
. /// UwA? [. J,d& {///)
m f-is 20 21. 23 2 i l n 21 77 28 30 1 l si 33 "l : ! N, , 2 _ - _ _ .__ _ .- . . _ _ ___.__ __ me __
f% t. YtC . ic ecaves a - ' Mt "1Du'L'v"850 j;', ' .
. , t oo.c.osv i.o ie n. oa t.ettst innacoverms .t.' o- st3 1191117IeIris '7 INSPECTOR'S REPORT 9 9 9 0 o 3 3 4- 8 3 o I ^ '*"'*'"""'" "*'t,'*' .di', e 8
(Continuation) i a 3 e . . ac difica c f Inspection and Enforcement C j
*o D , n vcL .1cn on clusA1cN ttater no tele a 00 enaractere rer esen nem. et sno test esseece sare number. n ont be nes s esary so personre ne Lems hnes te S0 enaracters esen.V
._h olalta m, >
1 I Contrary to Section 21.21(b)(1) of 10 CFR Part 21 dated December 30, 1982, a director, 'responsibic. officer, or. desionated person had not notified the Comission of the ',4ckel wafen p g skaf/ /a:/-o n on de caenge iy _ si elly.A d: <nt j s.O n ni.V*l1L al I,a) 'see (-n :iLa) ./. He JL ene t,s., Ah.slenn Yea < a f l.4 ;. n . I ' Further, there was no evidence of actual knowledge
-that the Codraission had been adequately informed.
This is a Severity Level III violation (Supplement VII). m = I s e i. i - e e 4 4 t e
- 5 6
- 4. -
f.
~
$6u3 I)L O c ioew as A ooczg,xe ,,,,,,, oater =st s't wooutt auwuS '
-I lly noisnaooscrin nsvei i
,,, ,,, g,9,g,.j,,,,,g 7 INSPECTOR'S REPORT 9 9 9 0 o 1 1 + a 3 o I ^ 5
'* * ' *' 5 ' " " " o' c' r&' *" ,, c !, e (Continuation) 8 i 3 e . . ac Offica of Inspec;lon and Enforcement c y eo D
v n 1
*foL AinoN oX DLYLA1CN dnSee sog lets00therecsere cor este nem. fiske nest anteecs thee number. n etNbe nesesearp aapersebesse Lemn Noes 00 $0tneracreas eann }
~
V:ela h a n W6 *" 9 3 (' c ul, e s, -L Se ed :c , O t. si L L) . r. I o c e a n,a u J Lc) wsnn i i i # % Ti e t e n b s e { e v a lu st);e n ha) kol $tes 97 n ey su se r *%_ F l ee
. _ y [. n l Jel-:t L ge..f7 -4 p .. ru - J:t:e ,J L M a,, n : ,, Mcnc- ~
i - _ l SoG
~ y e rt N hll:ky of' -$e e , ,:;t j e . , A*-' I lcn n --l: - jset{ce{ u nlen y e.y
$ e O D 9 -
& f A
g 7~oiw ame AL/.u,M. -
? O 3 % /-___ .
~
j
!' E bJ ' "44,dM 5DG W w Pow sin-j J b.h fu e 4 x 4 & . A de, fi',,0ri s Q i d k nu audus Powed W . ~~
(ytagLhv e 1W . M q tle g i-z ED C & l 1
%% M Gdpp bu>J Alma M A/D I y M & 1-2 & ~
No p M /-L W #4ut y j g h t 4 A W t7ead K vuAda Cr,ce. _J v/I ~ l
l
.k.
s .. ) CEPO3T W@ULE huMBER gc,eoap W A , onex,,,o ,,,,,,, om uce.~'ss GM Qg6
.. .e os3s no inv nacovernis sei e,o sto INSPECTOR'S REPORT 9 9 7 0 #73 f 73 0 / . w'c 55 sa:'* oa osvyc~ ,d]},.
,I e ac (Continuation) , , 3 , ,
Offico of Inspection and Enforcement c e:
. - . o . .,, .,
v ou ro o. oevi. re <~., ., , ,.= , ,u,,,, ,., ,, ,,.- ,, ,, .., .. . ,, . , ,. .... .,, ,. ,. t., ,., . m,,,,,,,,. ,, 1
'. M e ~1 ,
Gmtb% h c%%w Vc1 0+,A 6+a IocfR 2 l. QuJ s0 a =.) ('aNa a-4 Y l. 2 s-1 Y N 4 n N a s.L tLu w s_n A d ,.s J a ~ 2 % d 4. I. / v1 sh W nA.<rtek I. f a u o . be 1 A
' 'n, A $
' s A - .... J e.s Jkt da w&
FL 90&> (ro > mA . Ps m.as s1 t, p. no uw % M n it -n.w A k VL ' i- v v o 10 hf.UAf g 11
- 12. .-
12 17.
'8
'S 20 2'
22 23 21 25 28 .. P
- 2. I nl x
31 i ni
- 3. .
.S 6i nf 2
Tacronu nsA ~
&# iis I woouteNuusen , ,-
ooex,, ,o ,, ,-,,,, o, t,c,,,,,
;;'ja;W, No isnMooverm2 agem ,,o. ,,3 y gg ,.
INSPECTOR'S REPORT T 9 9a e 3 3 9 Ir'? a i ^ "*'"*" 5'"a'" oa w ?pc= ,dS,e e (Continuation) i 3 . . . ac Office of inspection and Enforcement c
] _e _
VIOt.ATON OR DEVIATCN (fator up to 2400 chorectors for e ecN NonP. If the forf process inas numeer, # estree necessary1e paraphreest usuf finc8 le 2 CAerectors esca.)
. 3 ,
2 c,,:la.,: - Y . r L en h , A 4. I c crn t'o n t va ana
/ JJ
< L Condrron. J.,.., L,aan.in,.A v, tr.A a n ) H. trr Jala) L s- a n,, 0 9, 19 , L -
i . s e/ -//e he,al/:,; TCocm l'n4 clit e . -
* %) A ,s I,e o 1 o. / 9 L 9. re me ,/:v el., s i 4 /
e s i ei -
,. t.. A 1,te im ,,,J.,.r .f g. a c_;,a f f . ,,, .. .
( [ollou: j lay. J Jn,,u:-j q ,o) I e,e/ Leep of to
. d n ~ >, on ln ae ; q y ,,y en; an d O ) nj ned a n ) da M : ( O 1 c l 9 71; 12 is. /)%J (1.) o s - get.- o f - an;, C d o 2 - + 2 r -/ o - a r ( I: sc J dnoqG.
,,q i
., l _ _-
*7
,s l 2c 21 22 22 !
24
- s 26
- ' J t
, :s t
- s '
I u 3, ! 22 u$ u
'?
hi a 4
** ' "*es' U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ WL (%s. 5 ceo =M A -
"oo* E ' En J' ,e . ,* , ,,
fl ( , noc:st o e.w. ion te.t..=:st aoinnaoovctins ,,,te t ,,, g ,'w"gg INSPECTOR'S REPORT 9 9 9 e o 1 t 4 8 3 o A ****'c%""-"o ot ym ,j'lf,, e (Continuation) , , , , , , .c Offica cf Inspection and Enforcement ' o b - - v n
.."Td"EM*"''''"*'''"*"'""'""""~~"*~~"**'""~"***"'''''''**'
~
C ,, l e ,, : e - Y J' Anr> e ,, J . v A L, Io epa va n f s'o r .
. f as tr Att v e 's O A N A a* ttn ,: 1 Ae am N.E e( $ % 0 % t 0 tr % $ ' V,9 ah iE ^ VSa e tYta ~
l A6 La i
/ i 6 e 'l s .
? D si -[r'.' % 7 si er 6 m [p; ,'s(#
M */-e.f O ry n :l l'2 19 7 9 A s 3 r7mr , & a, ol, 2T. A L . cI 4 e) 34su4n.'27 1776
*' N
_ p- '
'.J y . . .. c ale u Isl:,. ., a .f bT esc ~.
- /h1;veJ,,eheI ~elen p-
- n eja n ;I:.j , J :::: I g L e
Inud a4 4 "'ckan .N J<an Youen .flal...a - w -/As a.Colc ulo llo we [n Vle f ?n.r / occ u n trewCt b97 0 , ub'Cl e N ! ! / u e,
, , -/6 ,, rty w n . M ..k, A.J n./4 <;j,< J 4s J J4/e/ :s de y,- m y n . ~ .Je 1.
lk f) (4 4 4%i ft t Jf C c% o t ( 6% R h t.h t e l k A ho Eth M
,:e.], , a to - s , ;, & p.,,n .u . a.
l v 1
^
gev qp
^-
ce .m I ooc a ,,,o ,..c n m, cou6i ~u .ia p,, ,e. ,,cc.u, i esi.,moscim.v ,,.. ym,g 7, . INSPECTOR'S REPORT 9 9 9 e o Y 1 4 8 3 iS I ^ '" ** ""-" .dit, o d o! 9' ** (Continuation) , a 3 . . . ac Offico cf Inspection and Enforcement ' b
.oa s v =u*. n wn u enuner to on sosren omn anen se scenarsew.ucs.n m
u:,$,0 btvns,contmer.,o to snoc es oner*** ro* uen nem. I'the sur nenee on<o e '
~~
f .8 7 c/ // g, e .iN>. l. I k, 0 chhnan vC n.be7e 4 ,n n n n oG te a , nj.secrnsqb L. 2. I ns t a' 1.1 ef Serb.'e-1
.. (. el b N _
i I 4 / /
-- rel.n a ,- O 'r i 9 t ! .i- fle (0 v n t:L n u v ,anea t>n.,a ,,1 L Q o n) . -
- I '
/ / *
" n si, e d,
- u l :<k k J. ~ , h L cr h', ,, n . L J , -
> ~
__ p ,, - > > > , _ lu- / l y & E- p.,een:.,j o eg ., /e e,/ ; A.mc.<,,, M 7 onc ne-
]Sanc _
./
~
- v:e-<1 1
7 de .,n - ap n ,, e.,w el 1., d lod .[ pa. ::. , J.:1<J: ~ 6 S *. O
=h dh ** '
AM pg ( ) J/ Ga r j p g g ,*,og g
.s ,
c-
^^
.,) y c ar lo:s -k & d*w ! y ; !a jsd <l waIcn e u, e. If mi
.le J lbai d in#c a el n - e s i. n cf/< < la / /L ne(e a s a J. k., f ,,
1 A n c v:::e ., leael o.,d d d u ;, 4 /. - e n c,,,np >, q' A s((< A) A ed. _._ ___ i - i
ra W> ic80*w 708 A ** Poet uopv6s w ustn
,, . coc:tt no.ievno Paoovctms e e,x ion tie,gnsg e, .:
45
~
{, , ets 11911171ettIB INS'PECTOR'S REPORT 9 9 9 e o 3 1 + 8 3 si I a
"*"'**"""""'"B'*' e,tif, o (Continuaflon) e , , , , , , .c Offico cf Inspection and Enforcement '
c b l n n
- o. >.x a .. .- .. . . . - ~ ~ .. ,, .. ... . . . . ,~. ,, ~ . ~ . . .. ., .. .. . . v.,, ,, . . n a .a .... .... ,
,es$, 0 & t ,,,m, e,, a .... .,
Cn: k :. , v J. A,,,,e ,1;y n .L io eon iraa u.
- f. c mb .,E. ias on anu '4 j, s
s . .t . , s . .t. .r . o s J / t. z . I o,/' .te d:e s _, s ,,)
. - /L n en, e d : L, . clet al Fe lm,,, av, I 9 n, e,r Aa onn,n~Je i ,
.sle,L L de w a, L L, .,r -II.e o u.,: .
,J .) u . L n.~,,,ne,ttad,).,nn,x,tu..icisn Rev: :. , c. I,a) s .I I,e s ,, eL:. . J L, as I:L, c.~ L . I u .L,:e J:a a es;)e > <
, .,t : m. n - -
e.h hETkO A9%{@, f P M
N k6s%ia, h C s o*> M8 A I L F 'i *0 N'I " W" 8 8 2 gg goc:gt no isvto er.ess'oa oovctiiistic.t.est
. Jg ~
il911171 Iris .'* INSPECTOR'S REPORT 9 9 9 o o 1 1 + * **"'*'"""'"" 8 3
- 8
'it'*' ,et"fi o (Continuation) 8 i : . s e ac Offica cf Inspection and Enforcement '
b -- - a n
,nt:sio on otv.as o., stes.. o ue saxen ,,co.
a , ro on n nem or un e ** s e a. n os. n -.oe . n .ur e. ..< ...<r o. o...os. . tu,,su s.. oo u ssa,,c,,,, ,,an., d) 0 d /v) > - t S. C e n in a n ,. J. C n :le n:om v . r A ... . ., J:, n -1. s e e mr n, I to . on.r o. 1 i . - ri,r nli 6 '
-2. s.I a ., J 9.1.1 e/' O I:1 coulul Tsi a d:.m P'n. t elu n, iv,.
/ I l
t. t - .1 . y uw nui s.- .. 3, Joe 1 J < le ) La:( l. / 9 fl rr e n n : , ,' . ,,,r 4 A d u e n e >~ > n s u fu l- n e 1 - I '. 1 e s /II / Jmn: ; 4 /,.,, men:e> m l, , s J ,4 J: , e , A t m .1,,, ,, m,, ,,
~
wene I, e : i ~ ): /:< l . -
.. . i
;: & 7
,m.ws.n.,.a.1ao y ..a . , u.. n ,sa p,,./ m,r i 1, t.d y su u tn . c, e t. ,, si, /i A:a,
; .7 iv.. o 3 - m - a s - n e
- wn, yn eur) :s D J. Le n 1 9 s i.. F u n d e n , & p nml:ly n e e <,4) - _
, l-~ L J s ,f L es e,le n.J ;, 4 p . ,1:l y oue r/,1 1/.d . _lami L L.,,, knJ 8. ( L a e , enien<) ;, & (:,al een71 L/.< L .f r tu u . - l 6 M 0 D ' N . Ob I (O # - !- . I - 4 1 l s'
44 MW 'l - ic consa <l roar woova vaata go- . .* , . , . . s. oo.c.o.ci is t,o .. ., .. v.,en. eaooxvios i ic ,3, ,,, g,9,g,7,,,,,g INSPECTOR'S REPORT 9 9 9 0 o 1 1 + 8 3 o I a
**'*""""'"**"4'* . *lle e (Continuation) ; * , e . . . .c Of fice cf inspection and Enforcement C
{ ~ '.e
. , y . (. g , e ... ,........... . ...... . ......... .. . ~- - .. . .. ., ... .. . u . . ,.. .... . ,.
% %. Conlaan. 4 ra: Ira:a V .t A o o r , J:a AL I i - I l o cne va,,4 sa.
/
Le a J ue1.1kre r, v- .. ., r c.<,n a a 4a L.,:t:;)a 1,.. tyi- 1g c < i < c le ) k O w I9iI: canasnan!,1s.3.IasJ:lr .1 A a n n nr.L r c
. u -
a- . _ . . - . -< E o e I 'd aled A ,, a :I O o. "I 9 i1. - n,J Me "D a n ll f:tsl:.~ JI le', c~4 g - I LJae n c o c i:,, s Tc ~;> :c 8 "J J )
.t. ,, o 1 - ris- o s L . Ic .4
- c. I%.
LL L en I t,19 n, d y ., , , . me t, ,:, . a la d ,j L 2 <, d t w , ul E D C, -/f LJeJ .8 if<na<qse) qmlel wale" I' " ~ r ' h " ""'" O 'c' " ^ ^ .' p.t:pai:.8 I,,) -.i ie u , n .n:s c J. I l t
sac *o o ns A W* NI
;'j g ata t "O d'E"u"*'d ooc.g2
=o <aroeaooverm3
,,,,,, o v..e..r ii sg , ,,o . FW g9l117IeIrl's -
INSPECTOR'S REPORT 9 9 9 0 o 1 1 4 a 3 o i ^ **** " """' "
,Ufe e (Continuation)
- i 3 3 . e *c i
Offica cf Inspection and Enforcement C 77
] *D lt
,es ~o a u ,e a.... . a . .e.... .~.....eu .o.~.~.u~. e w.a -- ~..~ ,~ w . w n. u n -.. ~ u a w are..u v i O fv; - .
3 3 s hCen$ nan. J. Cn:L r,; a s v d' A.,,a., h> A 4. I o c Fn Mi so n l m.
/ I Ii i . I r A. I d uel, 0
- c f E (n P' 7 Jole ) Ann:t 3 0. I 911 m
/
$" . . ; s ' '
'(' fu a dns] ' Mnlen tel~j l>el;f;lA:.n Ato. IT L ' o f 9 c o a JL _
1_ L_ ^ i,le c ] Gelolen (, I ? ? 2. , k n d 8 o f le e>>
.en m.al e ~:Jc~o J by -/de l<k y '~. n r: 6o s r.l- e h -L ' ayy,, . a .e I ble c Ic.. '
A r. I l I l l 1 l l 4 l l B Y .
.,,. .i U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-. (b .,99.. % .
=
.unc eow 5e
- ooc.o,,,s,y,o ca u a. cense a paco i ,,,yc,,,ms REPoaf Mo0VLE NU2 SE A ll',jlb ., a.te, ,,o . ,,2 zo,y gg .
INSPECTOR'S REPORT F 9 7v S 3 7 4 830 / a v'o'aaoa **viaa' oa osv'goa d'h (Continuation) a
, , a 3 . . . ic Offica of Inspection and Enforcement c eo D - =
veOLA110N On OtvsArnon (E neer un so 2400 coerectere tot eacn Hem. 9the test escoees aus number, n wet se neceeenry se serephrene. Lhnet anee ne 99therettere each. )
' dCGM
- 2. % h r h !,.% $ & fcs*.i.'s, Y .Y.M.)3:>/g 'rG AF' Y/ /G ffk , fy/ SO 4+t./
' bf 4 1-5%_2. lY' W JS' /90% E*MA,-CW A BS^ Y W Y /d h P / Y _lN W M c'2Tf9 2 u>&z Au:h% a%C6kiMEto./A
- 7A H12s %) 3 e'
- e m E n W. J 561 u /a c+ u.oT~t.e . * % l s-l C i a .,5 ? so A /A ,/
do - GMXf %A s , M1, - (
.: . . . . . ~ .: .. . . . . .. . .
10. 11 12 12 14 ts it
,,\
s 19 , 20 2 22 r 23 24 2s
- s 21 ps 29 30 31 22 33 l 1
ss is i OI n
= ., .s'o es,eei U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!! o
) % e 6 ,e y 9 1,?C,'0"***
- 4. cocner is e Noteroaoogc.iniat.is, oatice,.se H POM
,,o MODULE NWBER
,,o ,,,,,,
INSPECTOR'S REPORT I ^
"*** d " " c" o"T ** ,dh ,
(Continuation) e , , 3 , , , ,c, Offica of Inspection and Enforcement C
] ec i
WCLATCN OR otvlATCN <Emer un re 2400 characters scr eacn otem. I9 tne tent enceecs tnos number. st wort De neces sary to cerechrase Lumot tmes to SQ cnaracters each p 2 3 4 g .# *>. , e e =. e s. ., . . , . ,a g , , . , , , , , ., , ;,,, . , . ,
- s ..
6.
?
I
. s , . . .
*0 t?
12 13-14 es t
't I i
t, . 8 i 9.
- 3 i
1l'
- 1 i
S ! .I
,\
l st ' ,I i 3 i I 6 i i U
\ U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMV'SS!ON}}