ML19262C650
| ML19262C650 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/20/1979 |
| From: | Gage L, Hale C, Hunnicutt D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19262C644 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900403 99900403-79-2, NUDOCS 8002150225 | |
| Download: ML19262C650 (27) | |
Text
~
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORC'dMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900403/79-02 Program No. 51100 Company:
General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Business Group 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Inspection Conducted: June 25-29, 1979 Inspectors:
O. )
h,dM6 7/u/79 J.(R) (.ostello, Principal Inspector Date Vehcor Inspection Branch "TE. H. T6 d 0 ~
7/xch9 R. H. Brickley, Principal Inspector Date Vendor Inspection Branch O"s t
et 7.h79 D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, ComponentsSection II Date Vendor Inspection Branch
$r.
0dd, Jn L. /W.) Gage, Reactor Ihspector Date Rek. tor Construction & Engineering Support Branch Region I Approved by:
O C. J. Hale, Chief, Program (Evaluation Section Date Vendor Inspection Branch 800c150
, Summary Inspec:: ion on June 25-29, 1979 (99900403/79-02)
Areas Insoected:
Implementation of topical report NE00-11209-04A in the areas of product acceptance, design verification, manufacturing quality assurance,10 CFR Part 21 follow-up of inside recirculation spray system pump motors, follow-up of control of procurement of items and services (JPW Industries and Marvin Engineering Co.), follow-up of steam separating equipment deficiencies ar.d follow-up of previous inspection findings. The inspection involved one hundred fourteen (114) hours on site by four (4) USNRC inspectors.
Resul ts :
In the areas inspected one (1) deviation was identified and two (2) unresolved items.
Deviation: Control of Procurerrent of Items and Services (Marvin Engineering Co.) - Failure to evaluate a supplier based on his capability to provide items or services in accordance with the requirements of the procurement document as required by subsection 4.1 of ANSI N45.2.13-1976.
Unresolved Items:
1.
Follow-up On Steam Separating Equipment Deficiencies - It is not apparent from evaluation of the evidence presented that certain modes of failure of the Steam Dryers would not create a substantial safety hazard (DetailsSection I.C.3.f.).
2.
Control of Procurerrent of Items and Services (Marvin Engineering Co.) - It is not apparent that GE has selected the proper safety classification for feedwater spargers and themal sleeves (DetailsSection IV.B.3.b.2.).
DETAILS SECTION I (Prepared by J. R. Costello)
A.
Persons Contacted J. H. Breseke, Manager, Procurement Quality Assurance
- C L. Buckner, Specialist, Quality Assurance C. H. Chien, Quality Control Engineer J. W. Cleveland, Senior Engineer W. C. Cohn, Manager, Quality Control Engineering A. N. DiCesaro, Quality Assurance Representative D. B. Drendel, Senior Engineer, Reactor Internal Design
- R. J. Murillo, Senior Engineer, Quality Assurance and Operating Methods W. R. Perrault, Manager, Quality Control Engineering E. J. Plehm, Principal Quality Control Engineer T. R. Regenie, Senior Engineer, Safety & Licensing
- L. V. Stonebraker, Specialist, BWR Services Quality Assurance
- Cenotes those present at exit meeting B.
Follow-up on Previous Inspection Findings 1.
(Closed) Deviation A (Report No. 79-01): Some Audit Summary Reports did'not mention audit team meetings, did not identify checklists used, and did not list persons contacted during the audit. Appropriate supplements furnishing the omitted informa-tion have been added to the subject audit reports.
To prevent recurrence, personnel in Quality Assurance Engineered Equipment and Installation (QAEE&I) have been instructed by letter to follow instructions in QCSI 7.2.17 (Supplier Quality System Audits, Records & Corrective Action) to the last detail.
2.
(Closed) Deviation B (Report No. 79-01): Procedures or instruc-tions do not exist describing the method by which changes to the evaluation model are reported in amendments submitted to the NRC as required by paragraph 1.6 of Section II of 10 CFR 50, Appendix K.
Nuclear Energy Projects Division Procedure 35-2.0 (Project Licensing Activity and Implementation of Nuclear Regulatory Re-quirements) was revised on May 1,1979, to include provisions for reporting to NRC changes to approved evaluation models as required by Appendix K to 10 CFR 50. All appropriate personnel have been instructed by management regarding the new provisions in procedure 35-2.0.
. 3.
(Closed)
Deviation C.1 (Inspection Report No. 79-01):
Material Request No. 399284, dated November 2,1978, for safety related hardware, exhibited seven (7) revisions which had not been signed with a full name. The inspactor verified that the ini-tiator of the changes to MR-399284 had signed his name to the seven (7) changes. Supervisors of the change initiators have been instructed to reinforce training relative to the requirement of signatures. QA personnel responsible for reviewing changes have been re-instructed to not accept changes unless the changes meet the signature requirements.
(Closed) Deviation C.2 (Inspection Report No. 79-01): Purchase Order (P.O.) No. 282-KE999, dated November 2,1978, for safety related hardware had been issued to a company not included in the Qualified Suppliers List, nor had the supplier qualification procedure been implemented. The inspector verified that the material procured on P. O. 282-KE999 was procured from a supplier on the Qualified Suppliers List. The agent's name, instead of the supplier's name, appeared on the P. O.
Current P. 0.s placed through agents have the qualified supplier listed on the P. O.
first and the agent second.
4.
(Closed) Deviation D.1 (Inspection Report No. 79-01): Monthly reporting to management of Corrective Action Requests (CARS) open for over thirty (30) days had not enhanced follow-up action; CARS SJ34213 and SJ34214 had not been identified in the Outstanding CAR report of November 1978 as 152 days overdue due to no response.
Also, the seller had not responded to these two CARS within tne time specified by the GE-San Jose buyer. The inspector verified '
that these two CARS were followed up and closed.
(Closed) Deviation D.2 (Inspection Report No. 79-01):
CAR SJ34217 had not been identified in the Cutstanding CAR Report as of January 12, 1979, even though this CAR had been open for more than thirty (30) days.
The seller had not responded to CAR SJ34217 within the time specified by the GE-San Jose buyer. The inspector verified that CAR SJ34217 had been followed up and closed.
5.
(Closed) Deviation E.1.a. (Inspection Report No. 79-01):
Inspection Report (IR) No. R672T, dated November 10, 1978, contained a " repair" disposition provided by the Material Review Board (MRB); however, the IR contained no statement ~ of justification for the _ disposition.
IR No. R672T had been closed out and was located in the PGCC Records Center. The inspector verified that a justification statement had been added to IR No. R672T on March 12, 1979.
(Closed) Deviation E.1.b. (Inspection Report No. 79-01):
IR flo. R689T, dated November 17, 1978, states in part: " Repair broken barriers per MSP 16.014, Revision 1.
Repair has no effect on form, fit, or function." There were no signatures in the "MRB Disposition Approval" spaces indicating no review or approval by the MRB as required. MSP 16.014 is entitled - Repair of Broken Terminal Board Barriers.
IR No. R689T had been closed out and was located in the PGCC Records Center. The inspector verified that IR No. R689T was corrected on March 12, 1979. No MRB action was re uired since the disposition should have been s
" rework" instead of " repair."
(Closed) Deviation E.2.a. (Inspection Report No. 79-01):
IR No. R785T, dated January 4,1979, displayed eighteen (18) non-conformances that had not been assigned disposition codes; of these, fifteen (15) of the nonconformances had been corrected and accepted by QA as evidenced by QA stamp and date in space 24 of IR No. R785T. The inspector verified that the omitted codes were added and the remaining deviations were corrected, accepted, and signed off by March 12, 1979.
(Closed) Deviation E.2.b.
(Inspection Report No. 79-01):
IR No. R142W, dated April 13, 1978, indicated
" Accepted-1, Rejected-0"; however, no stamp or signature or date appeared in the appropriate space (space 24) of the Individual Deviation Letters to show product acceptance, even though the electrical cable had been corrected, retested, reinspected, and released.
IR No. R142W was located in the Open IR File, which also indicates a Nonconforming Tag was attached to the product--it was not. The inspector verified that space 24 had been completed and that IR No. R142W was closed on March 12, 1979.
(Closed) Deviation E.2.c. (Inspection Report No. 79-01):
IR No. R313W, dated January 15, 1979, contained no indication of inspection activity in spaca 24 of IR No. R318W, even though the electrical cable had been corrected, retested, reinspected, and
- tamped.
IR No. R318W was located in the Open IR File, which also indicates that a Nonconforming Tag was attached to the product--it was not. The inspector verified that space 24 had been completed and that IR No. R318W was closed on March 12, 1979.
6.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (Inspection Roort No. 78-04):- The-adequacy and implementation of GEs cleaning procedures for in-process fabrication of the reactor vessel with installed internals and the adequacv of the reactor vessel seismic pin keeper welds are not apparent. A memorandum from John R. M. Miller, GE Resident Site Manager, to R. C. M;tchell dated March 1,1979, shows that follow-up work to be performed at the Perry Site, such as installation of the core spray line, feedwater sparger and recirculation inlet nozzle modifications will produce the same type of contaminants; follow-up cleaning is scheduled for this, as well as a final cleaning operation. Also, in this memorandum it was disclosed that an examination of the subject seismic pin keeper weld at close range showed the weld was sound.
7.
(Closed) Unresolved Item,(Inspection Report No. 79-01):
It is not apparent how revisions to the Quality Assurance Audit Status Report are controlled. QCSI 7.2.17 (Supplier Quality System Audits, Records and Corrective Action) was revised on May 27, 1979, deleting the requirement for controlling Supplier Audit Status Reports.
8.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (Inspection Report No. 79-01): The engineering and/or procuremnt procedures do not state when a Material Request Change is required authorizing a purchase order revision, or what purchase order revision, if any, can be made by the buyer without a Material Request Change. Engineered Equipment Procurement Practices and Procedures No. 3.01 (Material Requests) was revised on June 20, 1979. Procedure 3.01 now requires the Buyer ~ to assure that all technical requirements referenced in the MR (Material Request) are incorporated into the purchase order and that the purchase order is acknowledged by the vendor.
Non-technical changes can be made by the Buyer, but no changes shall be made in the technical requirements except as authorized by the cognizant requesting function via a Material Request Change (MRC) authorization.
C.
Follow-uo On Steam Separating Equipment Deficiencies 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of inspection were to determine if the failure of the steam separating equipment (Steam Dryer) under normal operating conditions or under a design basis transient could adversely affect the proper function of safety related equipment.
2.
Method of-Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
Examination of the safety classification for Steam Dryer a.
Assemblies.
b.
Review of the following Steam Dryer drawings:
(1) 16783443 Part 1, Rev 0, Tie Bar (2) 16783443 Part 2, Rev 0, Tie Bar (3) 137C7524 Part 1, Rev 0, Hood (4) 137C7557 Part 3, Rev 0, Bank End Plates c.
Review of photographs of completed Steam Dryer Assembly.
d.
Discussions with D. B. Drendel, Senior Engineer, Reactor Internals Design, and T. R. Regenie, Senior Engineer, Safety and Licensing.
3.
Findings a.
Within this area of inspection, one (1) unresolved item was identified; see item f. below. There were no deviations, b.
GE Master Parts List B130005 lists the Steam Dryer as a non-essential item.
c.
GE Established and Potential Supplier List for Engineered Equipment Procurement dated March 30, 1979, lists the Steam Dryer as non-essential.
d.
GESSAR Section 3.2 classifies the Steam Dryer as "Other" which means it is not classified as a safety related item.
e.
GE maintains that a failure of the Steam Dryer would not create a substantial safety hazard and that the Steam Dryer is not a basic component as defined in 10 CFR Part 21. Therefore, it is not subject to the reporting requirements of 10 CFR Part 21.
f.
It is not apparent from ar, evaluation of the evidence presented that certain modes of failure of the Steam Dryer would not create a substantial safety hazard even though GE does not consider the Steam Dryer as a basic component and lists it as a non-essential item. This finding will be further inspected during the next regular inspection and will also be referred to NRC Headquarters for evaluation of component classification.
g.
A design deficiency in the Steam Dryer designed for BWR IV & V 9:as discovered during startup testing at the Hatch Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2 in the United States and during normal operation of a foreign nuclear power plant. The deficiency was discovered in the foreign plant first and it was theorized as being caused by a reverse pressure wave which caused buckling of the plates and compression of the tie rods.
In Hatch Unit 2, the transients resulting from a turbine trip at 75% power cracked the weld which connects the hood with the end plates.
h.
A design change was made in the Steam Dryer for BWR IV & BWR V which changed the shape and size of the Steam Dryer Hood.
The old shape was a step shape with 1/2" thick material.
The new shape had a curve and the metal thickness was reduced to 1/8". The design analysis did not properly account for reverse pressure waves or other operating transients.
1.
GE has developed a design modification which they have asked all purchasers of Mark IV and V BWRs to apply. There are twenty (20) units involved. The modification consists basically of replacing the 1/8" thick hood plates with 1/2" thick plates, increasing the thickness of the tie rods and increasing the number of tie rods.
- j. The Mark VI BWR Steam Dryer design has 1/4" thick hood plates.
It is not known at this time if a similar problem exists in this design.
D.
Centrol of Procurement of Items and Services (JPW Industries) 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of inspection were to examine the measures utilized by GE to control the quality of items procured from JPW Industries to see if they met NRC requirercents. The items involved were Off Gas Sample Racks and Liquid Sample Racks.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Examination of the safety classification for Off Gas Sample Racks and Liquid Sampler Racks.
b.
Review of purchase order requirements.
c.
Review of Gamma Scan / Lead Uniformity Test Report Requirements.
_g.
d.
Discussions with J. H. Breske, Manager, Procurement Quality Assurance, and A. N. Dicesaro, Quality Assurance Representative.
3.
Findinos a.
Within this area of inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
b.
GE Master Parts List classifies both the Off Gas Sample Racks and Liquid Sampler Racks as non-essential (Non-Safety Related). There is no code welding or pressure retaining parts in these racks.
There are no requirements for traceability in the purchase c.
order.
d.
The Off Gas Sample Racks have a lead containment with internal radiation detectors for gas samples.
e.
The Liquid Sampler Racks contain a lead containment with internal radiation detectors for liquid samples.
f.
Purchase order requirements state that lead containers shall be checked for voids. Sample chambers shall be. tested as assemblies. Portions of chambers with lead thickness less than 4" (e.g., machined portions in lead pour) shall be filled with lead plugs to obtain 4" minimum lead shielding. A Cobalt 60 source shall be placed in the center of the chamber and a minimum of 6 readings shall be taken at equal intervals with the effective center of the survey meter 3" from the external surface of the chambers, g.
There is a requirement that gamma scan results shall be kept on file by the lead-pour contractors for a minimum of 10 years, and-shall be available upon customer request.
Copies of gamma scan results shall be included in product certifications.
h.
GE has scheduled a pre-award audit on July 12-13 for a Safety Related Item to be procured from JPW Industries. This item is entitled " Local Rack Instrumentation" and is to be furnished to a foreign nuclear plant.
E.
Product Acceptance 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that procedures have been e etablished and implemented that provide for:
. a.
Requiring supplier verification of compliance with procurement req 6irements prior to offering the product (item or service) for acceptance.
b.
Documentary evidence that items conform te purchase documents be available at the nuclear facility site pnior to installation or use of the item, when a-plicable.
c.
Verification of documents certifying conformance which meet the followir.i minimum criteria:
(1)
Identification of the product and the procurement require-ments met.
(2)
Identification of procuremant requirements not met with an explanation and means for resolving the nonconformances.
(3) Attestation by responsible person whose function and posi-tion are described in the QA program.
(4) Description of certification system is contained in the QA program.
d.
Methods used to accept an item or service from a supplier, such as source verification for items difficult to verify after delivery; receiving inspection for items which are simple and standard; Supplier Certificate of Conformance for items that do not involve direct inspection by the purchaser; post installation
' test at the site if the item must be installed to verify its quality characteristics; and when services only are involved, technical verification of data produced and/or review of objective evidence of conformance to procurement document re-quirements.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The pmceding objectives were accomplished by an examination of:
a.
Applicable portions of the GE topical report NED0-11209-04A which establishes QA program comitments.
~
b.
Implementing procedures to assure that procedural controls had been provided to satisfy QA program commitments and to satisfy the intent of the Objectives section above.
(1) BWR Engineering Operating procedures (E0ps)
E0P 45-6.00 Supplier flonconformances E0P 65-2.00 Product Safety Requirement ECP 70-3.00 Spare and Renewal Parts E0P 75-4.00 Product Quality (2) QA Engineered Equipment and Installation Procedures EEP&P 3.04 - Established and Potential Suppliers List QCSI 7.2.0 - Quality System Description for Engineered Equipment and Installation QCSI 7.2.4 - Supplier Records For Engineered Equipment QCSI 7.2.5 - Final Inspection Product Release and Certification QCSI 7.2.17 - Supplier Quality System Audits, Records and Corrective Action QCSI 7.2.18 - Quality Requirements On Material Requests and Purchase Orders (3) QAR-I Quality Assurance : equirements c.
Documents to verify implementation of topical commitments and procedural requirements and to satisfy the intent of the objectives section above. These documents are as follows:
~
(1) Top Guides for BWR 5.
(a) P0 205-AE178 to Bingham Willamette Co.; 23 revisions, Rev 0 (10/4/73), Rev 22 (4/3/73).
(b) Technical Bid Review (9/8/73).
(c) Material Request AE178.
(d) Preshipment Review, Fiscal Week 42, 1974.
(e) QAEE&I Quality Review Transmittal, 12/12/74.
(f) Spec flo. 21A3319, Standard Requirements For Core Structure.
(g) Drg. fio. 762E651, Top Guide Cora Structure.
(h) Product Quality Certification (6/2/78) accepted with 15 DDRs.
(i) GE Trip Reports from 2/4/74 through 6/7/78.
. (2) RCIC Turbines.
(a) P0 205-AJ393 to Terry Steam Turbine; 3 revisions, Rev 0 (5/3/77), Rev 2 (10/9/78).
(b) Material Request, AJ178.
(c) QAEE&I, Quality Review Transmittal, 5/17/77.
(d) Spec No. 21A9526AV, Purchase Specification Data Sheet for Turbine Steam RCIC (Reactor Core Isola-tion Cooling) Drive.
(e) GE Trip Reports from 7/26/78 through 5/31/79.
(f) Product Quality Certification for a partial ship-ment with 2 DDRs; QA Conditional Shipment Release dated 5/29/79.
(3) Recirculation Loop Pipe Hangers, Struts (where applicable) and Accessories Including Pipe Clamps, Nuts, Bolts and Attachments.
(a), P0 205-AH564 to Ber en Paterson Pipe Support Corp.;
7 revisions, Rev 0 6/7/77), Rev 6 (6/4/79).
(b) Material Request, AH564.
(c) Spec No. 21A3502, Design Purchase Specifications, Pipe Suspension.
(4) Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Heat Exchangers.
(a) P0 205-AH733 to Engineers & Fabricators Company; 9 revisions, Rev 0 (9/3/76), Rev 8 (12/13/78).
(b) Material Request AH733, 5/5/75.
(c) Vendor Document List, 10/31/78.
(d) Vendor Technical Proposal Review, 10/7-8/75.
(e) Spec No. 21A9425AK, Purchase Specification Data Sheet for Heat Exchanger Residual Heat Removal (RHR).
(f) Product Quality Certification for RHR Heat Exchanger MPL #E12-B001 (Riverbrd #2) 12/27/78 with nc JDRs.
(g) Product Quality Certifications for Spare Parts for RHR Heat Exchangers MPL #El. -9001 (1/19/79) with no DDRs.
(h) GE Trip Reports from 10/21/77 through 4/3/79.
(5) Recirculation Pipe Snubbers (Shock Suppressors), Struts and A( essories Including Pipe Clamps and Structural Attachments.
(a) P0 205-AH565 to Pacific Scientific, Kim Tech Division, 11 revisions, Rev 0 (1/20/77), Rev 10 (6/7/79).
(b) Material Request AH565,12/28/76.
(c) Quality Records List, QRL 214AB,1/5/77.
(d) GE Notification List for Scrubbers,1/1'./78.
(e) DRG.131C7684, Recirculation Pump Rest aint.
(f) Product Quality Certification for Scrt aber Strut Assembly Pipe Clamp. MPL B336006 (2/';/79) with 1 DDR.
(6) Fuel Pool Heat Exchangers Including Relief Valves.
(a) P0 205-AG353 to Engineers & Fabricators Company; no revisions, Rev 0 (11/30/77).
(b) Material Request AG353, 6/17/77.
(c) Spec No. 21A9520, Purchase Specification for Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup (Filter Demineralizer).
(d) Spec No. 21A8770, Material Specification for Fuel Pool Heat Exchangers.
3.
Findinas
~
In this area of inspection, no deviations from commitment or unresolved items were identified.
F.
Exit Meeting A meeting was conducted with management representatives at the con-clusion of the inspection on June 29, 1979.
In addition to the individuals indicated by an asterisk in the Details Sections, those in attendance were:
J. Barnard, Manager, Product and Quality Assurance Operation R. C. Boesser, Manager, Technical & Administrative Program, Projects Division G. R. Hosack, Manager, Quality Audits A. I. Kaznoff, Manager, Product Assurance D. F. Long, Manager, Engineering Services D. G. Long, Manager, Quality Systems G. A. Senn, General Manager, Control and Instrumentation Department L. D. Test, Principal Engineer R. J. Valencia, Audit Coordinator The inspector sum 'ized the scope and findings of the inspection for those present at the meeting. Management representatives acknowledged the statements of the inspector.
. DETAILS SECTION II (Prepared by D. M. Hunnicutt)
A.
Persons Contacted D. L. Murray, Manager, Mechanical Equipment Division, BWR Systems Engineering Department
- 0. E. Lee, Manager, QC
- D. H. Currie, Senior QC Engineer
- Cenotes those present at exit meeting B.
10 CFR Part 21 Follow-Up on Inside Recirculation Spray System Pumo Motors 1.
General The manufacturer determined that a generic problem existed with the lower radial bearings of the inside Recirculation Spray System Pump motors when lower bearing failures were reported sy VEPC0 and Duquesne Light Company. The apparent design prealem was reported to NRC in accordance with reporting requirements cf 10 CFR Part 21 for North Anna and Beaver Valley nuclear facilities and VEPCO reported that similar equipment was installed in the Surry facility.
In the situations where the motor bearings failed, the dimensions of the bearings were at the most detrimental extremes of their allowable tolerances. The bearings had the minimum allowable tolerances, the shaft was oversized to its maximum allowable tolerance and the end shield had a minimum allowable internal diameter. The differential temperatures across the bearings caused the shaft and inner race of the bearing to expand more rapidly than the ball bearing and caused further reduction of the bearing tolerances.
This lead to over-heating and eventual bearing failure.
General Electric Company evaluated the 10 CFR Part 21 reports sub-mitted by their customers and determined that there ware no other pump motors of similar design and/or function installed in nuclear power facilities.
2.
Objective Ascertain whether the evaluation, corrective action and_ reporting of the lower Inside Recirculation Spray Pump (IRSSP) motor bearing failure were adequate and in conformance with requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 and associated procedures and controls.
3.
Methed of Accomolishment The preceding objective was accomplished by:
a.
Review of Virginia Electric Power Company (VEPCO) Report fio. LER 79-043-01T-0, dated April 26, 1979, and VEPC0 Report, Serial fio. ?55, dated April 11, 1979, to ascertain that reporting requirements have been met and that these reports accurately describe the design problem and that the reports satisfy the reporting requirements with respect to information provided and timing of submittal.
b.
Review of corrective action and modification completed by General Electric Company (GE) of Inside Recirculation Spray System Pump (IRSSP) motors to verify:
(1)
That correr.tive action is appropriate to correct the design error.
(2) That corrective action has been taken, is in progress or is planned.
(3)
That responsibility has been assigned to assure completion of modifications required.
(4) That generic implications, if identified, were incorporated in the corrective action.
(5) That corrective action taken or to be taken is adequate to preclude recurrence.
c.
Review of data to determine that the evaluation was adequate and appropriate.
d.
Review of evaluation of the design error to assure appropriate asse"sment of generic implications.
e.
The bearing failure of the IRTSP motors was evaluated as required by 10 CFR Part 21 and the reporting organization (VEPCO) procedures.
f.
Review of drawing for General Electric Tri-Clad Vertical Induction motor,ftodel fio. SK6319XJ1C, 300 HP, 460_V, three phase, including lower bearing, CAT 629A2180RLP001.
g.
Discussions of test results and modifications with cognizant personnel.
4.
Findings
. a.
Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
b.
The criginally installed bearings have been or will be replaced with new bearings that assure adequate clearances between the bearings and the shaft.
c.
The IRSSP motor end shields have been or will be machined to the newly specified ID tolerance for housing the bearing outer race.
d.
Four (4) of the IRSSP motors had been modified by replacing rhe original bearing with a replacement bearing that has proper dimensions and by machining the motor end shields to the newly specified ID tolerance to assure that the tolerances between the shaft and the bearings preclude overheating and related bearing failure. These four (4) IRSSP motors have been tested and were returned to the Beaver Valley Nuclear Facility on June 27, 1979.
Testing and evaluation by General Electric and testing at e.
Bingham-Willamette (B-W) (testing at B-W was witnessed by Stone and Webster and General Electric Company personnel) indicates that the replacement of the bearings with the replacement bearings and machining the motor end shields to the newly specified ID tolecances has resolved the over-heating and subsequent bearing failure problem.
f.
No other safety related problems on IRSSP motors have been identified or reported by customers of General Electric Company or by General Electric Company.
g.
The modifications to the IRSSP motor end shield and the replacement of bearings on the IRSSP motors is scheduled for completion by July 31, 1979.
h.
Review of VE""" 'eports listed in paragraph 2.a., above, appear to be in compliance with 10 CFR Part 21 reporting requirements.
The IRSSP motor problems appear to be as described in these two (2) VEPC0 reports.
. DETAILS SECTION III (Prepared by L. W. Gage)
A.
Persons Contacted L. Bohl, Manager of Design Review
- D. Brown, Manager, Quality Systems, Audits, and Records H. Clay, PGCC System Design
- D. Ferguson, Manager of Quality Assurance B. Fleischman, Manager, Quality Control PGCC B. Grim, Manager, Nuclear Instrumentation and Protection Design
- H. Hendon, Manager, C&I Engineering
- D. Lee, Manager, QC Engineering Services Operation D. Murray, Manager, Mechanical Equipment
- J. Murray, Manager, Quality Assurance--Engineering Design
- Denotes those present at exit meeting B.
Design Verification 1.
Objectives The objective of this area of inspection was to ascertain that design verifications were accomplished in accordance with the GE Topical Report "PGCC (Power Generation Control Console) Design Criteria & Safety Evaluation," NE00-10466-A (74 NED 9, ; lass 1),
February 1979 and with regulatory requirements.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objective was accomplished by:
a.
Examination of selected documentation, including:
(1)
" Electrical Equipment Separation for Protection Systems (Solid State)," 22A4002, March 15, 1976.
(2)
Design Specification No. 22A4062 (MPL No. A62-4050),
June 17, 1974.
(3)
" Design and Performance Specification for Power Range Monitor," 248A9545, original issue and revision of March 7,1979.
. (4) Qualification Test Report for PRM (Power Range Monitor)
Instrumentation, 235A1893, January 6, 1972.
(5)
Purchase Specification for " Electronic Trip Unit /
Calibration Devices," 21A3541.
(6) Qualification Test Procedure (Rosement) for Electronic Trip Unit, 6753C, Rev. A.
(7) Qualification Test Report ( (Rosemont) for Electronic Trip Unit, 127531.
b.
Interviews with cognizant design engineering personnel.
3.
Findings Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
C.
Manufacturing Ouality Assurance Program (including use of Certificates of Comoliance 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area were (1) to ascertain that fabrication, inspection, and testing of Power Generation Control Console (PGCC) type equipment is accomplished in accordance with regulatory re-quirements and the quality-control practices delineated in the GE
" Quality Assurance Manual," and (2) to ascertain how Certificates of Compliance were used.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Examination of selected plant areas, incluoing:
(1)
Receiving Inspection (2) Material Review Hold Area (3) Electronic Module Assembly (4)
Cable Fabrication (5) Subsystem Assembly and Test
. (6) System (PGCC) Assembly and Test b.
Interviews with cognizant quality assurance and manufacturing personnel 3.
Findings Within this area of inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
However, the electronic-module-assembly area was considered to be an area of concern.
Stacking and storing of completed printed circuit-board modules, identification of the operators who built the modules, preconditioning of spare modules and retrofitted modules, and layout of work area were items of concern.
GE indicated that Certificates of Compliance were requested from subcontractors where required by contract and code.
However, receipt of the Certificate of Compliance from a subcontractor did not necessarily substitute for inspection at his facility or receiving inspection' at GE. This, instead, was dependent upun the subcontractor's performance history.
. DETAILS SECTION IV (Prepared by R. H. Brickley)
A.
Persons Contacted O. 3. Doyle, Engineer J. Fratto, Manager, Process Control, Nuclear Energy Control and Instrumentation Department (NEC&ID)
K. W. Hess, Manager, Mechanical Retrofits R. A. Park, Manager, Vendor Quality Surveillance, Western U. S.
- J. K. Powledge, Manager, Quality Assurance, Engineered Equipment and Installation (QAEE&I)
D. L. Wright, Senior QC Engineer, NEC&ID R. B. Wright, QC Engineer
- Denotes attendance at the exit interview B.
Control of Procurement of Items and Services (Marvin Engineerino Co.)
1.
General This was a special inspection of the General Electric control of the procurement of feedwater spargers, thermal sleeves, and fuel grapples from Marvin Engineering Co., Inc. (MEC), Inglewood, Cali fornia.
2.
Obiectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
Measures to assure that applicable regulatory requirements, a.
design bases, and other requirements are included or referenced in the procurement documents, b.
Procurement documents identify the scope of work to be performed by the supplier.
c.
The technical requirements are specified by reference to appropriate technical documents.
d.
Test, inspection and acceptance criteria are identified.
. e.
Procurement documents identify any special instructions and requirements, e.g., design, identification, fabrication, cleaning, erecting, packaging, handling, shipping, and extended storage.
f.
Procurement documents require the supplier to have a docu-mented QA program and to incorporate QA program requirements in subtier procurement documents.
g.
The purchaser is authorized access to the supplier's plant facilities and records for inspection or audit.
h.
The purchaser's evaluation of the supplier was based on the ability to meet the technical and QA requirements plus pro-duction capability, personnel, planning, process techniques, and past performance on other similar contracts.
- i. The procurement document specifies the method of product acceptance, e.g., source verification, receiving inspection, and/or certificate of conformance.
3.
Feedwater Spargers and Thermal Sleeves a.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by an examination of:
(1) Sections 4 (Procurement Document Control) and 7 (Control of Purchased Material, Equipment and Services) of topical report NED0-11209-04A (Nuclear Energy Business Group BWR Quality Assurance Program Description) for programmatic commitments.
(2) Quality Control Standing Instructions (QCSI) Nos. 7.2.3 (QAEE&I Compliance with 10 CFR 21 and PL 93-438, Sec. 206)
Revision 2, 7.2.12 (Pre-award Evaluation of Vendors)
Revision 5, 7.2.18 (Quality Requirements on Material Requests and Purchase Orders) Revision 5, 7.2.38 (QA for Spare and Renewal Parts) Revision 5, and Engineered Equipment Procurement Practices and Procedures No. 3 '4 (Established and Potential Supplier List) dated Augusc 25, 1978, for implementation of programmatic commitments.
(3) The Established and Potential Supplier List dated March 30, 1979, and Report No. PQA-06 (Active Suppliers-By Supplier) dated May 31, 1979, to determine the suppliers
. of these items, classification of supplier, i.e.,
qualified to fabricate essential or non-essential items, code classification of the items, purchase orders that have been issued, and licensee plants invol ved.
(4)
Reports No. 76T-109, consisting of "Siin,Mier Evaluation and Audit Report," and " Evaluation and Audit Summary,"
dated August 11,1976; and 76T-109-A, consisting of
" Supplier QA Program Evaluation Report," and " Evaluation and Audit Summary," dated August 11, 1976, and December 1, 1976, respectively.
Vendor Approval Statu-Reports dated July 12,1977, and October 2,1978; MEC letti.c to GE (Audit Comments per GE 8/1/78 and GE meeting with MEC 9/19/78) dated September 29, 1978; GE letter to MEC dated March 6,1979; MEC letter to GE (QA Manual Replacement) dated February 24, 1979; GE Memorandum (QA Review and Surveillance of Marvin Engineering Co. for Fabrication of Feedwater Spargers for Both Operating and Requisition Plant Orders); Reviewer's Comments-Vendor (MEC) QA Manual Review dated March 5, 1979; and Foilow-up Checklist-MEC dated May 25, 1979.
The preceding documents were examined to determine that objective B.2.h was satisfied in accordance with the requirements of the documents identified in B.3.a.(2) above.
(5) Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. Purchase Orders No. 446731 dated January 10, 1978, to GE for a replacement set (4) of feedwater spargers for Millstone Unit 1 and No. 604093 dated October 24, 1978, to GE for four (4) triple wall, double piston, concentric thermal sleeve assemblies for Millstone Unit 1 to determine the licensee's requirements that were imposed on GE.
(6) GE Purchase Orders No. 205-AK235 dated January 16, 1978, to Chicago Bridge & Iron-Nuclear Co. (CBI-N) to fabricate one (1) feedwater sparger for Millstone Unit 1, and 205-AL709 dated January 5,1979, to MEC to fabricate feedwater spargers for Millstone Unit 1 to determine that licensee imposed requirements had been passed on to subtier suppliers and that objectives B.2.a through B.2.g and 8.2.1 were satisfied in accordance with the requirements of applicable documents identified in B.3.a.(2) above.
It was noted that the supplier had been changed from CBI-N to MEC and that Revision #2 to P. O. No. 205-AL709 dated April 13,1979, added the thermal sleeves.
k '
(7) Purchase Specification t!c. 22A5517 (Fabrication of Feedwater Spargers) Revision 0, dated January 5,1979, to verify that objectives B.2.a through B.2.g and B.2.i have been satisfied.
(8) GE Notification List No. 272AE, Revision 0, dated December 15, 1978, and Equipment Surveillance Parameters dated May 24, 1978, to verify that objectives 8.2.d and 8.2.i were satisfied.
(9) Various documents (TWXs or letters) in the AL709 file to verify that GE had reviewed and approved the MEC process and inspection procedures as required by Section 7.4 of Purchase Specification No. 22A5517.
(10)
Reports of supplier quality surveillance trips to MEC on April 6-14, 1979, and April 27, 1979, and the QA Records Books for the feedwater sparger and thermal sleeve containing Product Quality Certifications, Deviation Disposition Requests, Material Test Reports, Liquid Penetrant Reports, Heat Treat Certifications, and Dimensional Reports to verify that objectives B.2.d and B.2.i above and Section 5 (Inspection, Examination and Testing) of Purchase Specification No. 22A5517 were satisfied.
(11) QAEE&I Special Process Chectlist No.1013 (Liquid Penetrant)
Revision 2, completed June ll, 1979; QAEE&I Process Check-list No.1006 (Welding) Revision 2, completed June 7-12, 1979; and GE Memo to File dated June 21, 1979, summarizing the results of their investigations and additional witness point for new procurements from MEC.
b.
Findings (1) There was one (1) deviation (see Notice of Deviation) and the following additional items identified:
(a) Both the feedwater sparger and thermal sleeve were classified by the licensee as safety category 1 items and the requirements of 10 CFR 21 were inposed per Purchase Orders No 446731 and 60409.
(b) The requirements of 10 CFR 21 were passed on to MEC per GE Purchase Order No. 205-AL709.
. (c) All internal GE documents (listed in paragraphs B.3.a.(3) and B.3.a.(4) above) indicated that the items were non-essential.
(d) Quality Assurance Requirements (QAR)-I, specification appendice, applicable to safety related equipment, was not imposed on MEC but QAR-II, applicable to ncn-essential items, as amended by Supplements No. 26 (Sellers Quality Control Records Program-and Control of Processesj). 28 (Sellers QA
, and 29 (Seller Quality Records Program) was imposed.
(e) The documents identified in paragraph B.3.a.(11) revealed that GE's investigation determined that:
1)
Radiographs taken of the "T" section to sparger welds and three (3) nozzle to sparger welds on a completed Shoreham unit prior to its shipment showed that they met requirements.
2)
Radiographs taken of a Cofrentes thermal sleeve reld showed that it met requirements.
- 3) A review of in-house records indicated that specification /QC requirements were met.
- 4) An "in-depth" review of the qualification records of the MEC welders and NDE personnel indicated that all were qualified except welder W9. He was qualified on ASME Section IX form for Welder Qualification by an independent radiographer, however, he was disqualified on the X-Ray Reader Sheet by the same radiographer for non-fusion in the sample weld joint. The recommended corrective action was to requalify him (W9) to the 2g and 6g position and submit a Deviation Disposition Request on all welding done by him.
- 5) New orders with MEC will require GE QC witness of LP examination of the root pass. Note: new orders are for Quad Cities 1/2, Peach Bottom 2/3, Dresden 2/3, Pilgrim, and Bro'.ns Ferry 1.
. (f) Reviewer's Comments - Vendor (MEC) QA Manual Review dated June 27, 1979. This was a revision of a pre-vious document (paragraph B.3.a.(4)) and now states, "The above-identified QA Manual #7, Rev. O dated 8/1/77, was reviewed March 5,1979, and it was determined that the described QA program will meet the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, necessary for fabrication of feedwater spargers and/or other similar hardware not requiring supplier design control."
(2) GE is evaluating their procurement of the spargers and thermal sleeves from MEC to assess whether reporting under 10 CFR Part 21 is necessary. flRC:HQS is being asked to review the information obtained during this inspection and to provide a finding regarding the quality classification of the spargers and thermal sleeves.
This area will be considered unresolved and inspected further during a subsequent inspection follcwing the completior, of the reviews by GE and NRC:HQS.
4.
Fuel Grapples a.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectin.s were accomplished by an examination of:
(1) GE-flEC&ID, Qualified Supplier Data Sheet No, M2, Revision 0, to determine the items supplied by MEC, and classification of supplier, i.e., qualified to fabricate essential or non-essential items.
'2) NEC&ID Reports No. 78T-168, Revised January 12, 1979, con-sisting of the Evaluation and Audit Summary-MEC, and No. 79T-019 dated January 8, 1979, to determine that objective B.2.h was satisfied.
(3)
NEC&ID Purchase Order No. 282-KF295 dated August 10, 1978, to MEC to fabricate six (6) fuel grapples; Product Quality Plans No. QP 20.119 (Fuel Grapples), P.evision 1, dated November 16,1978; and QP 30.124 (QA Requirements for
~
Supplicrs of Safety Related Items), Revision d, dated January 16, 1978, to determine that objectives B.2.a through B.2.g and B.2.i were satisfied.
(4)
Supplier Qualification Transmittal Document-Documents NEC&ID review and approval of MEC's QA Manual and Process Procedures, to verify that NEC&ID had reviewed the docu-ments required by QP 20.119.
. (5) QA Trip Report Nos. JA 79T-008 (1/15-17,20/79), JA 79T-009 (1/29-30/79), JA 79T-014 (2/9/79), 79T-038 (1/16/79), and 79T-062 (1/30/79); Inspection Reports RI688 (3/21/79),
RI814 (6/7/79), RI815, RI872 (4/4/79), and RI873 (4/4/79);
and several Source Inspection Tags (SIT) to verify that objective B.2.d, B.2.g, and B.2.1 were satisfied. Note:
the SIT is stamped and dated by the GE Inspector to indicate that all required inspections have been performed by him and the item complies with the purchase order.
b.
Findings (1) Marvin Engineering Co. (MEC) was qualified by NEC&ID to supply fuel grapples, classified as essential equipment, via audits reported via trip reports No. 78T-168 (initial audit) and 79T-019 (follow-up audit).
(2) 10 CFR 21 and the applicable elements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, were imposed on MEC activities via P. O.
No. 282-KF295.
(3) All fuel grapples have been rejected by NEC&ID receiving inspection for reasor.s such as shipping damage and electrical malfunctions, and have been returned to MEC for rework.
(4) The only requirements for NEC&ID source inspection is to review and certify the MEC data package, i.e., there are no witness or hold points nor any other required NEC&ID inspection activities.
(5) Receiving inspection performs a functional test and visual examination prior to acceptance.
(6) NEC&ID is waiting on the findings from the QAEE&I investi-gation (see paragraphs B.3.a.(11) and B.3.b.(2)(e) to determine what actions, if any, need to be taken with respect to fuel grapples.
_