ML19270H138
| ML19270H138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/02/1979 |
| From: | Kelley W, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19270H137 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900357 99900357-79-1, NUDOCS 7906230052 | |
| Download: ML19270H138 (14) | |
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900357/79-01 Program No. 51300 Company:
Jamesbury Corporation 640 Lincoln Street Inspedtion at: Worchester, Massachusetts 01605 Inspection Conducted: March 5-7, 1979 04/o2 /9 Inspect.
7
" William D. Kelley,' Contractor Inspector Date Vendor Inspection Branch Approved z//
4//at/N m
D. E. Whitesell, Chief, ComponentsSection I,
'Date Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on March 5-7, 1979 (99900357/79-01).
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and applicable codes and standards including, Quality Assurance Program review, manufacturing process control and training.
The initial management meeting was conducted on March 6, 1979, and the vendor's corrective action concerning a 10 CFR Part 21 report was reviewed.
The inspection involved eighteen (18) inspector-hours on site by one (1) NRC inspector.
Results:
In the four (4) areas inspected, no apparent deviations or unresolved items were identified.
2247 241 7906230cSod
__ Details Section A.
P_ersons Contacted T. Bibby, QA Engineer
- G. P. Menard, QA Engineering Supervisor, Projects
- W. W. Rawstorn, Vice President
- F. W. Kreuzinger, QA Manager
- B. C. Zannini, Chief Engineer, Projects
- Denotes those persons who attended exit interview.
B.
Initial Management Meeting 1.
Objectives The objectives of this meeting were to accomplish the following:
a.
To meet with the Jamesbury Corporation (JC) management and those persons responsible for the administration of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance program, and to establish channels of communication.
b.
To determine the extent of the company's involvement in the commercial nuclear business.
c.
To explain NRC direct inspection program including the LCVIP organization, VIB inspection method and documentation.
d.
To describe the NRC evaluation of the ASME inspection system.
2.
Method of Accomplishment.
The preceding objectives were accomplished by a meeting on March 6, 1979. The following is a summary of the meeting:
a.
Attendees were:
T. Bibby, Quality Assurance Engineer G. P. Menard, Quality Assurance Engineering Supervisor, Projects W. W. Rawstorn, Vice President B. C. Zannini, Chief Engineer, Projects 2247 242 b.
The VIB organization was described and its relationship to NRC Region IV and the NRC Headquarters component of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
c.
The LCVIP function was described including the reasons for its establishment, its objectives, its implementation structure, and the more significant program changes.
d.
The conduct of VIB inspections was described and how the inspections results are documented and reported, and what the responses to reports, should include.
How proprietary information is handled, the Public Document Room, and the White Book were also explained.
e.
The purpose, scope, and status of the NRC's two year program to evaluate the ASME inspection system as an acceptable independent third party was discussed.
f.
The company's contribution to the nuclear industry was discussed including current and projected activities, the status of the ASME-certification of authorization, and the third party inspection services.
3.
Results Management acknowledged the NRC presentation as being under-stood by them, and provided the inspector with the following information concerning the company's activities and products.
a.
The Jamesbury Corporation holds valid ASME Certificates of Authorization Numbers N-1228, and N-1233, for Class 2 and 3 Valves, valve parts and appurtenances. The certificates do not specify range of sizes, or pressure classes, and they expire on October 27, 1981.
b.
The Ja,esbury Corporation manufactures ball valves, butterfly valves,.,a-off and throttling control valves, valve acturators and related controls for the chemical and petrochemical processing, pulp and paper, petroleum, food processing, synthetic fibers, steel and iron, both nuclear and fossil power generation, marine, rail and pipeline transporation, and water and air pollution control.
These valves range in size from 1/4 inch to 42 inch and from 150 psi to 300 psi, ANSI pressure rating.
The nuclear portion of their activities accounts for approximately 6 percent of the total production.
22A7 2 0 c.
The Authorized Inspection Agency is Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, and the Authorized Nuclear Inspector provides inspection services on an itinerant basis.
C.
QA program Review 1.
Objectives The objectives of this inspection were to ascertain whether the QA program has been documented in writing, and if properly implemented, will ensure that the specified quality of completed components has been achieved in compliance with NRC rules and regulations, code and contract requirements and the commitments in the Quality Assurance Manual. Also, ascertain whether the program provides for the following:
a.
Management's policy statements concerning QA.
b.
Delineates how the QA organization is structured, to achieve appropriate independence from scheduling and costs, the freedom and independence to identify quality problems, initiate appropriate resolutions, and verify corrective action.
c.
Whether the duties and authority of the QA staff is clearly delineated in writing, and that they have access to a level of management that can ensure effective implementation of the QA program elements, and to enforce positive and timely corrective action.
d.
Detailed written procedures are properly reviewed, approved, released, and issued to control quality activities, as appropriate.
e.
A training and indoctrination program to improve or maintain the proficiency of personnel performing quality activities, and personnel verifying that quality activities have been correctly performed.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual.
b.
Review of appropriate organization charts.
2247 244
. c.
Review of the documents concerning the authority duties, independence and freedom of the Quality Assurance staff.
d.
Review of Statement of Authority, Revision 5, dated August 29, 1978, signed by Howard G. Freeman, President.
e.
Review of documents to verify that they had been reviewed and approved by authorized personnel.
f.
Review of the training and indoctrination program require-ments and documentation.
9 Interviews with cognizant personnel.
h.
Observation of work and test in progress.
3.
Findings The evidence demonstrates that the QA program has been documented in writing and clearly defines the duties, authority, and organizational independence and freedom of the QA staff.
Detailed written implementing documents are appropriately reviewed, approved, released, and issued by authorized personnel.
The QA staff has access to a level of management to ensure effective implementation of the program and timely and positive corrective action of enforcement items.
A viable training and indoctrination program has been provided for upgrading, and maintaining, the profi-ciencies of personnel involved in quality activities.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
D.
Training 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain:
a.
Whether procedures had been developed and approved by the vendor prescribing a system for training personnel performing quality activities, in a manner consistent with NRC rules and regulations, Code requirements, and the Quality Assurance program commitments.
b.
That the training procedures were being properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
2247 245
. 2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 10;
(.1) Section 15, Control of Nondestructive Examination and Component Testing, and (2). Section 16, Indoctrination and Training, to verify whether the vendor had established procedures to prescribe a system for training personnel performing quality related activities.
b.
Review of the JC Work Instruction Manual Section M.I, Revision 0, Indoctrination and Training, to verify that it had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by management, and reviewed by QA. Also to verify that pro-cedures provide for the formal training and retraining of new employees, inspection and testing personnel, personnel performing special processes, audit personnel, and personnel involved in quality related design and procurement activities, c.
Review of the following Nuclear Work Instruction documents; (1)
Form No. 3307, dated August 4, 1975, Training and Audit Check List.
(2) Form No. 3305, cated August 4, 1975, Training and Audit Notice, and
(.3)
Form No. 3306, dated August 4, 1975, Compliance and Findings Report, to verify that they provided for the indoctrination of personnel with the technical objectives of the codes and standards to be used, and the quality assurance / control elements that are to be employed. Also, to verify they provided for the testing of the capability and proficiency of nondestructive testing personnel and retraining and recertification if evaluation of performance shows individual capabilities are not in accordance with specified qualifications.
i:
2247 246
. d.
Review of training records of inspectors, nondestructive testing personnel, auditors, designers and quality assurance and procurement personnel to verify the procedures and necessary training documents were available to the personnel perfonning the training and the training procedures were being properly and effectively implemented and appropriately documented.
e.
Interviewed personnel to verify whether the training perfonned was commensurate with the persons assigned quality related activities.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that the vendor had developed and approved procedures that prescribed a system for the training of personnel whose activities affected the quality of their product in a manner consistent with NRC rules and regulations and his commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
b.
The inspector verified that the training procedures were being properly and effectively implemented by the vendor at the time of this inspection.
c.
Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or -
unresolved items were identified.
E.
_ Manufacturing Process Control 1.
Objec'tives The objectives of this area of the inspermn were to verify that the vendor's manufacturing processes wen a.
Perfonned under a controlled system which meets the NRC rules and regulations, ASME Code requirements, the vendor's commitments in his ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program, and contract requirements.
b.
Effective in assuring product quality.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
2247 247
. a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 10.
(1) Section 4, Procurement Procedure, (2) Section 5, Manufacturing Procedure, and
(.3 ) Section 11, Identification and Control of Rejected Items, to verify that procedures had been established which prescribes a control system of the manufacturing processes.
b.
Review of the Work Instruction Manual; (1)
Section G.1, Revision 0, ASPS-MSPS Preparation,
(_2)
Section G.2, Revision 0, ECP/ECN Processing,
(.3 ) Section K.1, Revision 1, Processing of nuclear documents and parts through the machining process, and
(.4 )
Section H.3, Revision 2, Shop Traveler, to verify that the control system requires shop travelers or process control check lists, to be prepared which identifies the document numbers and revisions to which the process must conform. Also to verify that all processes and tests are
-to be perfonned by qualified personnel using qualified procedures.
c.
Review of the shop traveler, or process control check lists, to verify that spaces are provided for reporting the results of specific operations, or reference to other documents where the results are maintained. Also that it includes space for the signoff by the vendor, indicating the date on which the operation or test was performed, and space for signoff and date, by the authorized nuclear inspector, to document his acceptance of activities that he has selected as mandatory hold points.
d.
Review of selected shop travelers; (1) 080-9000-22, 4" 6150 Body, and
'(2 )_ 501-9031-22, 6" 0150 (RF) Body, 2247 248
_g.
to verify their compliance with the above referenced pro-cedures, and the overall QA program documentation require-ments, including the establishment of mandatory hold points by the authorized nuclear inspector, e.
Interviews with personnel to verify they are knowledgeable in the procedures applicable to manufacturing process control.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that the vendor's manufacturing processes are perfonned under a controlled system which is consistent with the NRC rules and regulations, the Code requirements, the Quality Assurance Program commitments, and that the system is effective in achieving the specified product quality.
b.
Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
G.
Follow-up 10 CFR 21 Report 1.
Background Infonnation Jamesbury Corporation (JC) notified the NRC-IE on October 16, 1978, concerning the failure of the valve operator, during the seismic qualification, by dynamic testing, of an 8" Wafer-Sphere valve.
The dynamic testing was being perfonned for JC, by the Acton Environmental Testing Corporation (AETC) of Acton, Massachusetts, and identified the following problem areas.
a.
During the resonance survey in the front to back, and vertical directions, resonances were detected at 20.5 Hz and 27 Hz.
The lowest natural frequency established by mathematical analysis was determined to be above 33 Hz. This aroused the vendor's concern relating to similar valves that had been shipped, and others on order that were specified to be seismically qualified by mathematical analysis and/or static load test.
b.
During the second test phase (sine beat testing mode), failure of the actuator was experienced.
The nature of the failure was the cracking of the flange type coupling used to attach two segments of the actuator.
2247 249
. To prevent recurrence of this type failure, the support bracket was modified and bracing provided.
c.
During the retest of the modified unit in the sine beat test mode, it was observed that the actuator failed to respond to signal.
From inspection of the limit switch compartment, it was discovered that the plastic switch rotor of one of the four gear train limit switches had cracked.
To prevent recurrence of this failure the rotor material was changed to a higher strength plastic.
d.
The valve assembly, with the modified bracket and limit switch rotor material, was successfully qualified throughout all phases of the approved seismic qualification testing procedures.
2.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain whether the report of the defect was adequate and in confomance with 10 CFR 21. Also to ascertain the generic implications of this problem and whether the corrective action that was taken, or to be taken, is appropriate.
3.
Method of Accomplishment The foregoing objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the following documents:
(1) Jamesbury drawing D3707, Revision J, dated November 21, 1978, Sheets 1 and 2, for an 8" - 8226 PX, Model A Wafer-Sphere Valve Nuclear Class 3, 150 pound ANSI Flanged with Limitorque Electric Actuator.
(2) Bechtel Power Division Specification No. 8856-M-227, Revision 9, Technical Specification for Nuclear Service Butterfly Valves.
(3) John Henry Associates Inc., Report No. JHA-78-120, dated November 20,1978, " Natural Frequency Analysis of 6" Valve with SMB-000-2/H0BC Actuator."
(4) Acton Environmental Testing Corporation, Test Report No.
13865, Revision 0, dated October 16, 1978, and Revision 1, 2247 250
dated November 10, 1978, Titled " Seismic Vibration Testing of one 8" Wafer-Sphere Butterfly Valve with Limitorque" for Jamesbury Corporation under Purchase Order 0910.
(5) The customer's letters of approval of the seismic vibration test reports pertaining to their valves.
(6) JC's undated document
" Tabulation of Problem and Cause."
-(7) JC Inter-0ffice Memorandum No. BCZ-231, dated October 11, 1978,
Subject:
Action Required Resulting From Seismic
- ?
Qualification Failure of Limitorque SMB-000 Actuator.
Review of these documents was to ascertain whether the reporting of the defect was in compliance 10 CFR 21, accurately described the defect and included all pertinent information, and whether the timing of the report was consistent with the requirements, b.
It was verified that JC has posted Section 206 of PL93-438, and Engineering Procedure EP14, dated April 1,1978, establishing the rules for reporting defects that may cause a safety hazard on shipped products to nuclear plants.
Procedure EP 14 was reviewed to verify that it provides for the following:
(.1)
Identified the JC officers that must be notified of such defects.
(2). Established the timing and officers responsible for reporting such defects to the Commission.
(.3 ) Notification of customers.
c.
Discussions with the JC cognizant personnel concerning the cause, effect, and evaluation of the safety significance of the defects.
4.
Findings a.
From the documents reviewed and discussions with cognizant personnel, the following was determined:
(1) JC had reported the component failure in a timely manner and that the report was factual and complete.
2247 251
~ ~ ~
~ ~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. (2) JC does not know what systems in which these Class 3 valves are to be installed, and could not evaluate the safety significance of the defect.
(a) They have no knowledge as to whether a safety evaluation was made by the customer.
(b) Their concerns are based on the fact that the failure was in the motor operators which were classified as IE.
(3) They notified the NRC the same day they learned of the failures experienced during the seismic qualification tests.
Their report was due to concerns that they had shipped components equipped with operators that might not function under seismic forces.
b.
No deviations or unresolved items were identified.
5.
Generic Impact JC performed a review of all 3" to 12" Wafer-Sphere valves equipped with Limitorque actuators released from Engineering.
It was determined that the problem was generic to the following six (6) utilities:
Utilit,E No. Valves Size Quantity Shipped a.
Cincinnati Gas & Electric 4
8" 4
b.
Tennessee Valley 2
6" 2
Authority c.
Commonwealth Edison 12 8"
10 d.
Pennsylvania Power &
2 6"
0 Light 16 8"
O e.
Gulf States 10 6"
0 8
8" 0
4 12" O
f._ Carolina Power & Light 4
6" 0
2247 252
. Of the sixty-two (62) valves involved only sixteen (16) had been shipped.
6.
Corrective Action The corrective action is to modify the valvas to accept the nodified actuator bracket and replace the limit switch gear train assemblies.
It is proposed to field retrofit the sixteen (16) valves that have been shipped and modify the remaining 46 in house.
The corrective action schedules and assigned responsi-bilities are as follows-a.
The field retrofit will be accomplished by the JC Field Service personnel, as soon as possible.
To support this effort the following activities have been implemented.
(1)
Engineering Change Notices (ECN) have been issued which define all appropriate modifications required.
(2) All Engineering documents and bill of materials have been edited and revised as appropriate to incorporate the modification requirements.
(3) The necessary parts and drawings to accomplish che retrofit have been provided.
(4) Detailed procedures to clearly identify what has to be done were developed,and a training program conducted for field service personnel responsible for the retrofit.
(5) The customers were notified that a 460 volt, 3 phase AC power supply would have to be made available so that the service personnel could check the unit to verify proper function after the retrofit was completed.
- b.
For corrective modification of those valves still in house, the following activities have been or will be taken on an expedited basis.
(1) Engineering submitted, via the Project Manager, a copy of the seismic qualification report to all customers for approval.
(2) The Project Manager also provided fonnal documented changes being made to each of the customer's orders.
2247 253
. (3) Upon receipt of the customer's concurrence and approval of the changes to its order, process the modifications through the manufacturing processes on an expedited basis.
7.
Conclusions It could not be verified that an evaluation had been perfonned to determine whether the failure or malfunction of the class IE electric operator on a Class 3 150 pound valve would create a significant safety hazard.
It was verified that JC took the initiative and responsibility to report its concerns to the NRC in compliance with 10 CFR 21 in a timely manner.
It was also verified that JC implemented positive corrective action in a timely manner.
H.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on March 7,1979, the inspector met with the company's management, identified in paragraph A, for the purpose of informing them as to the results of the inspection.
During this meeting management was infonned no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
The company's management acknowledged the inspector's statement and had no additional comments.
2247 254