ML19325C804
| ML19325C804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/02/1989 |
| From: | Baker E, Brach E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325C792 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900839 NUDOCS 8910170287 | |
| Download: ML19325C804 (6) | |
Text
..,
v ll
$s,C.
n 1
1,'
ORGANIZATION:; ROTORK' CONTROLS, INCORPORATED 1
~~
ROCHESTER, NEW-YORK I
{
REPORT.
INSPECTION INSPECTION NO.: 99900839/89 DATE:- September 12-13, 1989 ON-SITE HOURS:~'17-j CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS:- Rotork Controls Incorporated 19 let View Drive-Rochester,;New~ York 14624:
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. Doug Matla, QA Manager TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(716)'328-1550 t
4 r
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: ' Electric and hydraulic actuators for valves.
(
m h
(
f I.,
{'
t 18 ASSIGNED. INSPECTOR:
22.l&
O M
M Edward T. Baker, Reactive Inspection Section No. 1-ae-OTHERINSPECTOR(S):
0 APPROVED BY:
/[
9
</C
'/c/ d5 i
E. William Brach,Ahief. Vendor Inspection Branch-BITE ~
l INSPECTION' BASES AND SCOPE:
A. :
BASES: Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, 10 CFR 21' B.
_ SCOPE: Review QA program elements applicable to design control, Lprocurement, and dedication of' commercial grade items.
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: Fitzpatrick (50-333)
'8910170287 891013 PDR QA999 EMVROTOR 99900839 PDC
.2
c p-j
.g k Gg.*
- ORGANIZATION: 30TORK CONTROLS, INCORPORATED i
l.
1.
-ROCHESTER;-NEW: YORK h
\\
lin sREPORTJ JINSPECTION 1
f
- NO.:1'99900839/89-01;
.RESULTS:-
PAGE 2 of 6 b.
A.
- V10LATIONL None.
1 B.
NONCONFORMANCES:
m, d
1.-
Contrary to Criterion'III of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and
. Paragraphs'4.2 and 4.2.1'of Section 3 of Rotork's'QA Manual, on
-Anchor l Darling Valve Company Purchase Order (PD) G-1942 and-Revision 1 to.the P0, Rotork personnel failed to route Nonstandard Product: Request Forms 916 and 1087 to the QA Manager for review and approval.- (89-01-01) 2.
Contrary to. Criterion III of Appendix B to'10 CFR 50 and List of Parts, LOP 050, Rotork used 3/8"' diameter,1" sockethead capscrews purchased connercial grade to hold down thrust rings without verifying that the capscrews met the 70' tons / square inch requirement listedon' LOP 050forthe' item (Item 69).
(89-01-02) 3; Contrary to' Criterion IV of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and Paragraph-5 of ANSI N45.2., Paragraph 3.4 of Appendix A to
'Section:7-of Rotork's QA manual does not require that suppliers to Rotork pass QA requirements down to their suppliers ender any t
.circuustance.
(89-01-03)
- 4.. t Contrary to Criterion IV of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and Paragraph 3.6:of-Section.4.0 of Rotork's QA Manual,.two P0s to-
- ASCO for solenoid' valves qualified to IEEE-323 and 344 were not t
approved by the QA manager and did not include appropriate QA
. requ irements.'
(89-01-04) 1 m,
5.-.
Contrary. to. Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, Rotork had 1
no documented-instruction or procedures on how items returned from customers were to be handled, resulting in replacement ASCO
. solenoid valves being ordered without appropriate QA-requirements.
- C~
UNRESOLVED ITEMS:-
During the inspection, Rotork's Part 21 procedure was reviewed and the: inspector reviewed the changes which were made to the procedure a
as'a result of a previous NRC inspection and guidance. The procedure described the actions to be-taken when a defect was determined to exist, i.e., report it to the NRC. However the revised procedure did not cover actions to be taken when a deviation exists that Rotork O
,.I f '
)
_.~..,
i 3
ORGANIZATION: ROTORK CONTROLS, INCORPORATED I
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK
-~
REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900839/89-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 3 of 6 l
l cannot perform the evaluation to determine if the deviation could
[
create a substantial safety hazard, i.e., report the deviation to their custoner.
In discussing these concerns with Rotork's QA Manager, he informed the inspector that the current Part 21 procedure was i
rewritten during the last NRC inspection and was found acceptable as i
rewritten.
It is recognized tnat NRC comnents on the procedure inadequacies during the previous inspection were inadequate or incomplete. As a result this issue is ca.tegorized as an Unresolved 1ssue, 89-01-06, and corrective action will be reviewed during a future inspection.
D.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
There were no findings during the previous inspection, f
E.
INSPECTION FINDINGS AND OTHER COMMENTS:
[
1.
Entrance and Exit Meetings The NRC staff informed Rotork's managenent representatives of the scope of the inspection during the entrance meeting on September 12, 1989, and summarized the inspection findings and observations during the exit meeting on September 13, 1989.
2.
QA Program Rotork has a single QA program written to meet Appendix B and ANSI N45.2, which is applied to their three actuator lines, the nuclear qualified electric motor driven A-series, the quarter-turn electric motor driven AQ-series, and the pnuematic P-series.
Suppliers to Rotork may be qualified by audit, review of the supplier's QA manual, or historical performance.
L.
Design Control According to Rotork's QA Manual, anyone can suggest a product modification through the product nodification system. The inspector reviewed the modifications listed in the Engineering Design Mods Report Log for the period 1984 to present. Two modifications were selected for detailed review. The modifications had been evaluated for affect on the actuator's qualification and found not to affect qualification. The appropriate parties had reviewed and approved the modifications.
i
.. - - ~--
-...._.,..__.-.m..
g a*
0;>., *
[
. ORGANIZATION: ROTORK CONTROLS,' INCORPORATED ROCHESTER, NEW YORK e
REPORT INSPECTION l
?
NO.: 99900839/89-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 4 of 6 L
During discussions with Rotork personnel concerning the sources of parts for the valve actuators, it was determined L
that all parts for the nuclear qualified electric o>erators j
E1 are ordered from Rotork Limited, Bath, England, wit 1 the exception of fasteners, which are procured locally from a supply house. When asked which fasteners are considered 1
critical to the functioning of the operator, Rotork's Engineering Manager stated only the 3/8" diameter,1" long sockethead capscrews that hold down the thrust ring are considered critical. When asked for a copy of a PO for the J
('~
& Bolt Company that included this fastener which was ordered fasteners, Rotork personnel provided a PO to Rochester Screw commercial grade. When the inspector asked to see the design requirements for the capscrew, Rotork personnel provided List of Parts, LOP 050.
The capscrew was listed as Item 69 and described as a 3/8" x 1" UNC sockethead capstrew, 70 tons / square inch tensile strength. When questioned by the inspector, Rotork personnel stated that no action was taken to assure that the capscrews purchased as comercial grade net the tensile strength requirement. This was identified as Nonconformance 89-01-02.
b.
Procurement Document Control The inspector's review of the QA Manual revealed that i
Rotork's Supplier Quality Assurance Policy, Appendix A to Section 7 of the QA Hanual did not require Rotork's supplierstopassapplicableQArequirementsdownto F
sub'.ier suppliers. This was. identified as Nonconformance 89-01-03.
l c.
Control of Purchased Material Equipment and Services l.
Rotork's QA Manual allows suppliers to be qualified based
[
on product quality history ofthesuppliers'QAmanual. audits,orreviewandapproval For all purchased material, Rotork maintains a computerized data file, by su] plier and part number, on the e,uality of items supplied.
for all items produced domestically under a Rotork part number, Rotork performs a receipt inspect of all dimensions and drawing notes on a sample of parts received. The sample size is based on a Mil-Std-105D single sampling plan.
Every three months the QA department calculates a Vendor Rating based on the number of parts supplied and the number accepted.
The rating is mailed to the vendor and includes i
, _, _. - - -. - - - +
,,w...y...--,m-.m._-,
r 7...,-
K J,,.. -
J ORGANIZATION: ROTORK CONTROLS, INCORPORATED i
- e
,i ROCHESTER, NEW YORK i
REPORT INSPECTION I
NO.: 99900839/89-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 5 of 6 a request for corrective action for a rating of.4 percent or greater rejected parts.
If a con'pany has a reject rate of 5 percent or greater for three consecutive quarters, the company is removed from the approved suppliers list.
For the nuclear qualified line, there are only two qualified
[
vendors, Rotork, Ltd. and Carboline Company, the paint manufacturer.
Both companies are audited on a three year cycle and Rotork tracks the quality history of the parts t
received.
Products from these two com based on Certificates of Conformance. panies are accepted 7
d.
Control of Returned Equipment.
In reviewing the..QA Manual the inspector noted that control of equipnent returned for repair, replacenent, or any other reason was not covered by the QA Manual.
Rotork personnel explained that all returns are handled by the service department. However, there are no written instructions or t
procedures covering the service department's activities, i
This finding is identified as Nonconformance 89-01-05.
All returns are listed in a log book, Service Request / Returned Material Request Log. The inspector selected 13 packages for review. Of the 13 packages selected for review, only 2 L
were for actuators for nuclear power plants, and of those 2, I had a discrepancy.
SE-4820 was written to modify a l
pnuematic actuator ordered by Anchor Darling, P0 G-1942 and Revision 1 for use at the Fitzpatrick nuclear plant on a feedwater nonreturn checkvalve. Part of the modification involved changing out two ASCO solenoid valves for the same l-niodel valve, but with 6-foot leads. The modification was documented on Nonstandard Product Request Form 1087, dated March 16, 1989. P0 32079 was placed with ASCO on May 9, 1989 as a commercial grade order.
The inspector reviewed Anchor Darling's order to Rotort and noted that the P0 required the ASCO solenoid valves be certified to IEEE-323 and 344. The inspector then asked to see the paperwork for the original actuator. The inspector reviewed Nonstandard Product Form 916 and R6tork's original P0 to ASCO, PO 30878, dated September 8, 1988. This PO was also a connercial grade order. Additional review of the nonstandard product forms and the P0s revealed that the QA Manager had not reviewed or approved any of them. The failure to have QA review the nonstandard product forms resulted in Nonconformance i
89-01-03 and the failure to include appropriate QA requirenents
Ea
-g.
o..'
ORGANIZATION: ROTORK CONTROLS, INCORPORATED i
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK REPORT INSPECTION "I
- 'O. : 99900839/89 01 RESULTS:
PAGE 6 of (
in the P0s to ASCO and have the OA Manager review the P0s resulted in Nonconformance 89-01-04 Rotork took prompt corrective action and issued a modification to the F0 to ASCO, requiring the valves be manufactured under ASCO's QA program. The revised P0s were reviewed by the QA Manager.
F.
PERSONS CONTACTED:
Robert Arnold, President Daniel Brown, Manufacturing Manager Doug Matla, QA Manager Mark Saltzer, Purchasing Manager Fredric Washburn, Engineering Manager l
r I
I 4
ee-,
,-,,-.-en---
e,w--
,,an,,
..,,.--.n,,,.n-,--
.,,n,.,,
- -. -,,,,,,.,,,,,