ML19275A411
| ML19275A411 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/10/1979 |
| From: | Kelley W, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19275A405 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900054 99900054-79-1, NUDOCS 7910040361 | |
| Download: ML19275A411 (10) | |
Text
-
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIfSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900054/79-01 Program No. 51300 Company:
Dresser Industries, Inc.
Industrial Valve Division P. O. Box 1430 Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 Inspection at: Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 Inspection Conducted: June 11-12, 1979
/ b, Inspector:
. hT C d&Y Ar 07-/O-Yf Wm. D. Kelley, Contractor Inspector Date Vendor Inspection Branch G:N Approved by:MN Y
of./6-99
~
D. E. Whitesell, Chief, ComponentsSection I Date Vendor Inspection Branch
.nw Summary Inspection on June 11-12, 1979 (99900054/79-01)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and applicable codes and standards including, design verification, audits and training; also, review of previous findings and IE-RV daily report item dated May 16, 1979. The inspection involved twelve (12) inspector-hoar on site by one (1) NRC inspector.
Results:
In the five (5) areas inspected, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
1095
'n7 7010040
2 Details Section A.
Persons Contacted Dresser Industries - Industrial Valve Div. (DI))
- L. M. Brown, QA Engineer, Systems and Audits J. S. Danielsci, Supervisor, Applications and Contract Engineering V. S. Lai, Chief, Analytical Engineer
- J. W. Richardson, Manager, Nuclear Operations
- Denotes those persons who attended the Exit Interview (See paragraph I).
B.
General Review of Vendor's Activities 1.
The ASME issued the following Certificates of Authorization to DI to use their symbol:
Certific$ tion No.
- Symbc1, Product N-1746 N
Class 1, 2, and 3 valves zo N-1747 NV Class 1, 2, and 3 safity and safety relief valves These certificates expire on May 20, 1980.
2.
The authorized inspection agency is Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co.
The authorized nuclear inspector is a resident inspector.
3.
DI's contribution to the nuclear industry represents approximately twelve percent (12%) of its total workload.
4.
International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers, Local No. 2518, have been on strike since May 7,1979.
C.
Previously Identified Items (Closci) Deviatioa (Report No. 78-01): Contrary to Criterion 't of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and 6resser Industries' welding procedure WS-302 dated August 15, 1973, a weldor was observed welding part number 516070705NC008 with a 3/16 inch electrode at 270 amperes.
The inspector verified that the welding supervision was i formed they must check that the weldors were staying within the parameters of the welding 1095 "":
3 specifications and that the welders were given additional training in the need for staying within the welding specification parameters and the training was documented.
(Closed) Unresolved (Report No. 78-01): DI issued an inter-office cor-respondence dated July 21, 1977, stopping the practice of making taped corrections to reports but there was no evidence that past reports had been reviewed for taped corrections.
The inspector verified that past reports had been reviewed for tape corrections.
(Closed) Unresolved (Report No. 78-01): DI stored their computer programs and design data in the computer but they did not identify the ASME Code edition and/or addenda that was applicable to specific design specifi-tations.
The inspector verified that the computer programs and design data now identifies the applicable ASME Code edition and/or addenda applicable to a specific design specification.
D.
Daily Report of a Potential 50.55(e) Item 1.
Objective
- un The objective of this area of the inspection was to review with the vendor, the May 5, 1979, IE, Region V, Daily Report of a potential 50.55(e) item concerning welding problems encountered during install-ation of DI-Hancock, 2 inch and smaller carbon steel valves. The problem is reported to be that weld surface appears to have a residue from pickling process, or was plated in the shop.
2.
Method of Acuvmplishment Review of the Customer's " Certification for Nuclear Service Valves, a.
2 inch and smaller.
." for the Nuclear Generating Station 13-PM-221A, Revision 7, paragraph 4.12.4.
b.
Review of DI Engineering Instructions PC-66, Revision 2, Procedure for Electroless Nickel Plating of Valves and Components.
3.
Findings The inspector verified that the customer's design specification (certification) states, "All carbon steel exposed surfaces shall have surface preparation in accordance with Dresser's Engineering Instructions PC-66," and DI PC-66 state, in paragraph 4.2.1, "The plating is to be performed in accordance wich MIL-C-2607B, amendment (1) dated May 14, 1971." No deviations from the purchase requirements were identified by the customer during his inspection of the DI plant prior to ship-ment.
.n
4 E.
Design Verification 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
a.
Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor to pre-scribe a system for design verification which is consistent with NRC rules and regulations, ASME Code requirements, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
b.
The design verification procedures are properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objective of this area of the inspection was accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 8, (1) Section 6, Nuclear Operations, and (2) Section 7, Product Engineering to verify that the vendor had established procedures which prescribes a system for design verification.
b.
Reviewed the following quality assurance operating procedures, (1) QA0P 1-1, Revision 5, Document Control, and (2) QA0P 4-1, Revision 3, Design Review and Control to verify that they had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by management, and reviewed by QA.
c.
Reviewed the quality assurance operating procedures referenced in paragraph b to verify that they contained measures to verify the adequacy of the design, require documented results of the design verification, required the design verification to consider importance to safety, identify method of performing design verification, identify items to be addressed during design review, and prescribes the requirements for performing verification by alternate calculations, or by qualification test.
d.
Reviwed design verifications and calculations.
(1) Stress Report No. SR-315-9, Revisica 0, concerning Dresser's 2-1/2 inch - 31533VX-30, Electromatic Relief Valve, and N
nn/
0e) vL3
i.
5 (2) Dresser Document No. SR-317-17, Revision 0, Stress Report concerning the Dresser 31749A Pressurizer Safety Valve, to verify proper implementation of the design verification procedures.
Interviews with personnel to verify that they are knowledgeable c.
in the procedures applicable to design verification.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that:
(1) Procedures have been prepared and approved by the vendor prescribing a system for design verifications, which is-consistent with NRC rules and regulations, ASME Code re-quirements, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
(2) The design verification procedures are being properly and effectively implemented.
b.
Within this area of inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
F.
Audits (Internal Management) 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor to prescribe a.
a system for auditing (Internal Management) which is consistent with NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME e.ccepted Quality Assurance Program.
b.
The audit procedures are being properly and ef fectively implemented by the vendor.
2.
Method of Acccmplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 8, Section 9, Control Program, Subsections 7.0, System Evaluation and Internal Audits, and 20.0, Indoctrination and Training, to verify the vendor had established procedures which prescribe a system for internal management audits.
b.
Review of the following quality assurance operating procedures:
(1) QA0P 1-6, Revi::ica 6, Internal Audit Systems,
\\o95
6 (2) QAOP l-4, Revision 7, Indoctrination and Training of Per-sonnel,and (3) QAOP l-7, Revision 8, Co'rrective Action to verify that they had been prepared by the designated auth-ority, approved by responsible management, and reviewed by the quality assurance staff.
c.
Review of the operating procedures referenced in paragraph b.,
to verify that they identify the organization responsible for auditing, establishes the audit personnel qualifications, provides for training and indoctrination of audit personnel, establishes the essential elements of the audit system, provides for audit schedules to assure coverage of all elements of the quality assurance program, and requires reporting to, and follow-up corrective action by, both the audited and the auditing organi-zations.
d.
Review of six (6) audit reports to verify whether the procedures and the necessary audit system documents, are available to the auditing personnel; and whether the procedures are being properly-implemented.
... =.
e.
Review of Approved Suppliers List.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that:
(1) Procedure had been prepared and approved by the vendor which prescribes a system for auditing consistent with NRC rules and regulation, ASME Code and contract requirements, and the vendor's commitments.
(2) The audit procedures are being properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
b.
Within this area of the inspection, no deviation or unresolved item was identified.
G.
Training 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain:
Whether procedures had been developed and approved by the vendor a.
prescribing a system for training personnel whose activities effect the quality of their products in a manner consistent with NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's QA Program commitments.
1095
]
7 b.
That the training procedures are being properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision a.
8, Section 9.0, " Control Program," Subsection 20.0.
"Indoctrin-ation and Training", to verify that the vendor has established procedures which prescribe a system for training personnel whose activities affect the quality of their products.
b.
Review of the following quality assurance operating procedures:
(1) QA0P 1-4, Revision 7, Indoctrination and Training and (2) QAOP 15-2, Revision 7, Qualification and Certification of NDE Personnel to verify that they had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by management, and reviewed by QA. Also that provisions are made for formal training and retraining of new employees, in-spections' anditesting personnel, personnel performing special processes, audit personnel, and other personnel who are involved in quality related design and procurement activitites.
c.
Review of the quality assurance operating procedures listed in paragraph b., to verify that they provided for the training including the technical objectives of the product, 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 examination personnel and the retraining and recertification and should the evaluation of performance show individual capabilities are less than the specified acceptance limits.
d.
Review of training records of inspectors, nondestructive testing personnel, auditors, designers and quality assurance and procurement personnel to verify that the procedures and necessary training documents are available to the personnel performing the training and that the training procedures are being properly implemented and appropriately documented.
Interviewed personnel to verify whether the training performed e.
was commensurate with the persons assigned activities.
10 9 5-
, n ')
8 3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that the vendor has developed and approved procedures which prescribes a system for the training of personnel in a manner which is consistent with the NRC rules and regulations, code requirements, and his commitments.
b.
The inspector verified that the training procedures are being properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
~-
9 c.
Within this area of the inspection, no desiations or unresolved items were identified.
H.
Review of Fabrication History of Three Mile Island Electromatic Relief Valve 1.
Objective March 28,. 1979, Three Mile Island experienced a loss of Condensate Pump and Feedwater Turbine Trip, which resulted in the opening of the electromatic relief valve. The relief valve failed to close af ter the pressure had decayed to less than its low limit setting.
The malfunction contributed to the incident which followed.
The objectivesrof this area of inspection were to review the customer's procurement documents and design specification, and the Vendor's in-house documents to ascertain whether the Electro-matic Relief Valve had been designed and manufactured in accordance with the contract requirements. Also ascertain what corrective action had been, or would be taken by the vendor to correct the cause of the valves malfunction.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the customers design specification CV-3-79/NSS-6/D170,
" Electrically Actuated Relief Valves for Reactor Coolant System Service." dated 1/16/70.
The above specification identified the facility as being TMI, and that the valves are to be flanged, designed to the requirements of USAS B16.5, 2500 lb. class.
The valves are designated as 1095
^'O
-.....g--e-6-*-
e e-_
-m--wg-unw-m gwm www
- e w umat e wa 9
-+w
9 being Class I of the 1968 Pump & Valve Code - and Class I Seismic. Materials are specified to be either 304 or 316 austenitic stainless steel.
The tests required are hydro; and the valve is tn lift within 1% of the set pressure on three successive lifts and reseat within 2% of the set pressure with leakage less than 2cc/hr/ inch of seat diameter.
All welders and weld procedures to be qualified per ASME Section IX Code, NDE in accordance with the ASME Section III and Pump and Valve Code for Class I.
b.
Review of Drawing No. CP1570, Rev. O, dated 10-20-70, ASME Section III, 2 inch - 31533VX-30 Consolidated Electromatic Relief Valve - 2500 lb Class.
It was verified that the drawing accurately reflected all of the quality requirements of the customer's design specification. The drawing also identified the solenoid to be GE No. CR-9503-213 CAT 55 (125V-DC),
modified with class H insulation and Epoxy (Gyptol) added to the coils to resist moisture.
(1) It was observed that the drawing was reviewed and approved
' by Babcock and Wilcox on 4-24-71, and the approximate weight was noted as being 175 lbs.
c.
Review of DI Matrix of Valves manufactured for TMI Unit II This matrix indicated that Valve SN BN04233 was shipped to TMI on 2-25-72 and was used initially on Unit I, it was serviced in the field in October,1974.
In September, 1975, it was checked, disc remachined and retested on Unit I in the field.
It was returned to Dresser where it was repaired in March, 1976, for use on Unit II.
In October, 1977, seals were re-lapped on Unit II in the field.
d.
Review of the Stress Report No. SR-315-9 Rev. O for the 2 inch - 31533VX 30, Electromatic Relief Valve to verify that the valve, as designed, was acceptable.
e.
Interviews with cognizant personnel to ascertain whether the cause of the malfunction had been determined, and the corrective action that has been or may be implemented to prevent similar malfunctions.
1095
10 3.
Findings It was determined that the valve was manufactured, inspected, and tested in accordance with the applicable codes and contract require-ments. However, cause of the malfunction cannot be determined until the vendor can have access to the area to ascertain the following.
a.
How the valve was installed in the system.
b.
Wasthesolenoidcoigencapsulatedinthepipinginsulationwhich could exceed the 180 e rating for class H insulation, and/or was the epoxy coating effective in resisting moisture.
c.
Disassembly of valve to permit detailed inspections, examinations, and tests.
The date that access to the area will be possible is as yet unknown.
I.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on June 12, 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 informed no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
The company's management acknowledged the inspector's statement and bad no additional comments.
nrq
)
/E v
.-.