ML19295G098
| ML19295G098 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/16/1980 |
| From: | Barnes I, Foster W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19295G097 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900219 NUDOCS 8012180599 | |
| Download: ML19295G098 (9) | |
Text
U. S. NUCI. EAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900219/80-01 Program No.
51400 Company:
General Electric Company Switchgear Business Department 6901 Elmwood Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19142 Inspection Conducted:
Septemce: 29 - October 3. 1980 n
Inspector-l
[
Nh n/s/b
/s# W.
E. Foster, Contractor Inspector
'Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch
.o Approved by.:
/
g/j/f3
/49I. Barnes, Chief Da'te ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Summarv Inspection on September 29 - October 3, 1980 (99900219/30-01)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B criteria, and applicable codes and standards, including manufacturing process control; follow-up on regional requests; follow-up on an unresolved item; and implementation of 10 CFR Part 21.
The inspection involved twenty-eight and one-half inspector-hours on site.
Results:
In the four areas inspected, no deviaticas and the following unresolved item were identified.
Deviations:
None Unresolved Item: Manufacturing Process Control.
Upon reviewing General Electric Company's. Requisitions, it was act apparent to the NRC inspector how the con-tractor was able to determine the contractual requirements for safety-related equipment (Details section, paragraph D.3.c).
8 01 L' 18 0 bbfE
2 DETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted M. V. Soyle, Engineer, Senior Design R. H. Brealey, Engineer, Senior Electrical A. Brooks, Foreman, Quality Appraisal D. C. Brooks, Engineer, Requisition C. S. Chrostewski, Engineer, Product Services E. M. Fitzgerald, Engineer, Senior Design R. J. Fitzgerald, Supervisor, Herkolite and 10-1 Machine Shop
- J. A. Higgins, ~1anager, Quality Appraisal
- R. J. Kates, Manager, Sales (Outdoor Breakers)
- V. Kwasneski, Specialist, Quality J. A. Marshall, Manager, Requisition Engineering
- R. H. Miller, Manager, Product Engineering
- F. J. Pastore, Manager, Quality Assurance E. Roth, Specialist, Quotation
- C. A. Scott, Manager, Quality Systems
- Attended exit interview.
B.
Follow-uo on Regional Requests
===1.
Background===
It was reported to the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, a.
Region II, that certain GE circuit breakers, with the ML-13 operating mechanism, contained teflon coated fiberg. lass (Tuf-loc) bearings that could cause problems as a result of uneven wear.
b.
It was reported to the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region I, that linit switches had loosened on the GE 1200 and 2000 ampere magne-blast circuit breakers with ML-13 mechanisms.
c.
It was reported to the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region II, that the High Pressure Core Spray Metal Clad Switch-gear at Grand Gulf, Unit I had not met the seismic requirementa of the purchase specification.
d.
It was reported to the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region II, that the circuit breakers located in the 6900 volt auxiliary power switchboard:
(1) may not attain full impulse levels; (2) failed insulation withstand load; and (3) may experience bearing failure in some breakeru.
3 2.
Obiectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that General Electric-Switchgear Business Department (GE-SBD) had taken adequate corrective and preventive measures regarding:
(1) Tuf-loc
~
bearings; (2) loose limit switches; (3) seismic qualification of the High Pressure Core Spray Metal Clad Swit hgear; and (4) circuit breakers in the 6900 volt Auxiliary Pever Switchboards.
3.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
Reviewing the following documents to verify that customers had a.
been informed of potential problems:
(1) General Electric Company - Installation and Service Engineering Division letters of various dates to various customers re-garding replacement of Tuf-loc bearings, and (2) GE-SBD Service Advice No. 318.2 dated March 22, 1979; Subj ect:
ML-13, Mechanism Sleeve Bearing Replacement b.
Observing the repair of AM7.2-500-6HB circuit breakers, returned by the Tennessee Valley Authority on Return Material Authoriza-tion No. 46822.
c.
Observing the use of limit switches on various sizes of circuit breakers.
d.
Reviewing the following documents relative to the High Pressure Metal Clad Switchgear for Grand Gulf to verify that seismic tests had been conducted and to determine the customer's position relative to such testing:
(1) General Electric - Nuclear Energy Division's Purchase Order No. 205-AEa13, Revision 0, dated November 7, 1975, (2) 3eismic Simulation Test Report No. 43381-1 (Wyle Laboratories),
dated June 7, 1977; entitled "
. Test Program on 4.16 kv-1200A-350 MVA Metalclad Switchgear, (3) GE-SBD's Report of Test, dated July 11, 1977, on the equip-ment identified above, d.(2), and
4 (4) General Electric's Requisition Instruction Sheet, dated December 15, 1977, from the San Francisco Office on Order No. 205-AE-413.
e.
Beviewing the following drawings to verify that an index hole had been incorporated on the bushings:
(1)
No. 0845D0123, 3evision 9, dated May 11, 1979, entitled -
Front Bushing Assembly, and (2)
No. 0845D0124, Revision 11, dated May 11, 1979, entitled -
Rear Bushing.
f.
Observing the fabrication of bushings, completed bushings that had been subjected to impulse testing, and impulse testing of an item under development.
g.
Reviewing paragraphs 9.8.7 and 09-4.10.3 of American Standard Requirements and Test Code for Outdoor Apparatus Bushings, No. C76.1-1964 and American Standard Test Procedure for AC High Voltage Circuit Breakers No. C37.09-1964, respectively.
h.
Reviewing bushing impulse test data, dated November 7, 1978 to July 30, 1980, to verify that records had been maintained on bushings that had been tested.
4.
Findings a.
Coaments (1) GE-SBD had notified its direct purchasers of the affected circuit breakers, as well as the Original Equipment Manu-facturers, of the potential problem with the Tuf-Loc bearings.
This notification was made by the Installation and Service Engineering Divis1on.
As a means of correction, GE-SBD had recommended replace-ment of the Tuf-Loc bearings with Aluminum 3ronze bearings.
Ordering information had been provided for obtaining the placement kit.
Additionally, some customers had returned the circuit breakers to GE-SBD for refurbishment.
To preclude recurrence, the design had been modified to specify use of the Aluminum Bronze bearings in those loca-tions where the bearings are heavily loaded.
This design was qualified and has been introduced into all new breakers since 1975.
5 (2)
GE-SBD personnel stated that life test data, Licensee Event Reports and information from Turkey Point had been reviewed, and in no instance had loose limit switches been identified.
It was pointed out that these limit switches are also used on many other circuit breakers; some with higher energy, impulse, and shock levels.
GE-SBD is at a loss to explain this high incidence (21 of 50 switches in 10 circuit breakers) of loose limit switches but it is considered an isolated case inasmuch as the available data does not indicate other occurrences.
(3) The High Pressure Core Spray. Metal Clad Switchgear at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Generating Station was manufactured by GE-SBD but supplied by GE-Nuclear Energy Division (GE-NED).
The switchgear was manufactured to GE-NED Purchase Order No. 205-AE413, Revision 0, dated November 7, 1975 and its revisions. The switchgear for Unit No. I was shipped with the concurrence of GE-NED.
Seismic tests were conducted on the switchgear for Unit No. 2 with Unit 1 being reworked to reflect the tested / modified switchgear.
GE-NED had approved the Seismic Test Report (Wyle Laboratories) and the Report of Test (GE-SBD).
GE-NED had not requested any information from GE-SBD sub-sequent to identification of the seismic information problem.
(4) The circuit breakers in question are identified as 7.2 kv.
The possibility of not attaining full impulse level and failure of the insulation to withstand load are related to the bushing. The possibility of bearing failure are the Tuf-Loc bearings previously addressed. The circuit breakers are used in the 6900 volt Auxiliary Power Switch-boards with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) being the only customer that uses them in a Class IE application.
The bushing problem resulted from a misinterpretation of the drawing during manufacture of the bushings.
Some of the bushings were machined as mirror images rather than as opposites.
Initially, knife edges were used as a means of showing the difference; however, these were removed during the machining process.
The period of manufacturing of the faulty bushings could not be determined.
The VRC observed that some circuit breakers had been returned by TVA and were being repaired.
6 As a means to preclude recurrence, drawings had been revised to incorporate an index hole for identification purposes.
Also, the impulse test, which is a design test, is now can-ducted on all bushings used on nuclear orders.
b.
De'.*iations From Commitment None.
C.
Follow-Up on Inspector Identified Unresolved Irem 1.
Objectives The objective of this area of the inspection was to verify that the inspector identified unresolved item had been resolved satisfactorily.
2.
Method of Accompli;hment The preceding objective was accomplished by discussing the status of the qualification test program with the responsible person.
3.
Finding (Closed) Unresolved Item (Inspection Report No. 78-02):
The quali-fication test program is still in progress with an estimated completion date of December 1981.
The NRC inspector perceives no benefit to be gained by leaving this item open for this period of time and considers the item closed.
D.
Manufacturing Process Control 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that measures had been established and documented to control manufacturing, inspection and test activities. Also, to verify these activities had been accomplished in accordance with the established and documented measures.
Additionally, verification of indication of mandatory hold points in appropriate documents.
2.
Methods of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Reviewing the following documents to verify measures had been established and documented to control manufacturing, inspection and test activities:
7 (1) The Quality Assurance Manual - Switchgear Products, dated September 8, 1980 - Sections: D-2; D-5; H-3; and B-2.
(2) Quality Assurance Instructions, Nos. -
(a) 213001, Revision 5, dated September 19, 1980 - Metal Breaker Fixtures Metal-Clad Switchgear, (b) 213022, Revision 5, dated November 17, 1978 - Final Assembly Inspection Metal-Clad Equipment, (c) 213037, Revision 4, dated May 19, 1976 - Inspection of Breaker Compartments Vertical Lift Metal-Clad Equipment, (d) 216010, dated April 14, 1978 - Quality Assurance Test Instructions for Metalciad Switchgear, and (e) 221003, Revision 3, dated October 31, 1979
~.aspection Procedure for Nuclear Related Metalclad and Bus Duct Equipmeat.
b.
Reviewing the following documents to determine the applicability of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, ANSI N45.2 or adequate interpretat.;n of one of these documents:
(1) General Electric Requisitions, Nos.
(a) 297-84762-2, dated January 26, 1976, for Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Order No. 2425.220-010-2, dated Janutry 15, 1976, (b) 367-17000 and 367-17000-8, dated August 16, 1973, and November 28, 1979, respectively for Tennessee Valley Authority Order No. 74C2-84376, dated August 9, 1973 and Change No. 16 (no date shown on the GF. Requisition),
and (c) 300-91059-6, dated April 7, 1980, for Long Island Lighting Company, Order No. 348920, dated January 23, 1980.
3.
Findings 2.
Comments F e NRC inspector lacked sufficient time to verify implementacion of the documented measures.
8 b.
Deviations From Commitment None.
c.
Unresolved Item A nuclear customer forwards his Purchase Order to a local General Electric Field Sales Office which, in turn, issues a requisition. Eventually, the requisition is received by sc-SBD.
A review of requisitions for safety-related equip-ment revealed that some requisitions did not incPtde, or reference the customer's technical specifications or applicability of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, ANSI N45.2, etc.
As a result of the foregoing, it was not apparent to the NRC inspector how the contractor was able to determine the contractual requirements for safety-related equipment, especially, the quality requirements.
E.
Implementation of 10 CFR Part 21 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that suppliers of safety-related equipment had established and imple-mented procedures in accordance with 10 CFR 21.
2.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
Reviewing the previously identified GE requisitions (D.2.b.),
a.
to verify the equipment was safety-related and 10 CFR 21 had been invoked:
b.
Reviewing the Switchgear and Distribution Transformer Division's Procedure No. 06-01.000, dated January 3, 1978, entitled -
Procedure for Complying with Regulation 10 CFR 21 Peporting of Defects and Noncompliances.
c.
Observing the posting at various locations.
3.
Findings 2.
Comments The NRC inspector lacked sufficient time to verify totsl implementation of 10 CFR Part 21.
9 b.
Eceistions From Commitment None.
c.
Unresolved Items None F.
Exit Interview 1.
The inspector met with management representatives denoted in para-graph A at the conclu; ion of the inspection on October 3, 1980.
2.
The following subjects were discussed:
a.
Areas inspected b.
Unresolved Item identified c.
Contractor response to the report 3.
Management representatives requested that the NRC inspector clarify some of his comments for inclusion in the report.
The inspector agreed.