ML19345F833
| ML19345F833 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/03/1980 |
| From: | Barnes I, Oller R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345F824 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900378 NUDOCS 8102190401 | |
| Download: ML19345F833 (5) | |
Text
.
h U.5. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFCRCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900378/80-02 Program No. 51400 Company:
NAMCO Controls Division ACME Cleveland Corporation 149 Cucumber Street Jefferson, Ohio 44047 Inspection Conducted:
Octocer 29-30, 1980 H-2-/8 Inscector:
R. E. Olier, Contractor Inspector Data ComoonentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branen Approved by: h[ [
[
t 1/3 /?,
I. Barnes, Chief
/
Date ComoonentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Summarv Inspection on Octocer 29-30, 1980 (99900378/80-02)
Areas Inscected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B criteria and apolicaDie coces anc stancarcs including:
action on previous inspection findings, manage-ment meeting, and folicwup on a 10 CFR 50.55(e) report concerning TVA Bellefonte Units 1 and 2.
The inspection involved eight (8) inspector-hours on site.
Results:
In the three (3) areas inspected, no deviations or unresolved items were 1centified.
0M 810219
2 DETAILS SECTION A.
Person; Contacted "J. Bentley, QA Manager "9.
Loomis, QC Manager "L. Ward, Vice Pre 2 dent of Manufacturing & Engineering
" Attending the exit meeting.
3.
Action on Previous Insoection Findings (Cpen) Deviation (Report 30-01):
Failure to provide documented procedures to control activities in the areas of:
auditing, purenasing, material storage, engineeri'ng, and calibration.
The inspector found that in accor-dance with NAMCO's response letter dated May 29, 1980, procedures have been written to control the above activities.
Three of the procedures have been accroved and imclemented, and nine procecures are in a final draft form and are being reviewed by NAMCO management for final approval.
.4AMCO manage-ment indicated that all of the procedures will be aoproved and implemented prior to Feoruary 1,1981.
This is the date wnich NAMCO committed to for completion of procedures.
This item will remain open pending verification of the implementation of the remaining nine procedures.
C.
Management Meeting 1.
Objectives The objectives of the management meeting were to meet with the new Plant Management to establish communications, discuss tne purpose and intent of the Vendor Inspection Branch (VIB) direct inspection program and to learn the basic functions of tne plant.
2.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomolished by the insoector's pre-se. itation ano the resulting discussions covering the following:
a.
NRC policies and organization.
b.
VIB program objectives and how these objectives are to be accomplisned.
c.
VIB organization.
c.
Basic inspection techniques of the VIB.
e.
Enforcement procedures acclicaole to vencors, including Section 206 of tne Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 anc Part 21 of 10 CFR.
3 f.
The White 5ook.
g.
Questions.
3.
Results No unusual questions or discussions developec or occurred during the management meeting.
D.
Followuo on 10 CFR 50.55(e) Recort by TVA Concernina Imorcoer Oceration of NAMCO Limit Switenes in Actuators For MVAC Dameers on Beliefonte units 1 and 2.
1.
Introduction On June 11, and July 10, 1080, the NRC was notified by TVA, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e), that NAMCO Type 170-41100 and Typt 170-42100 limit switches, furnished by American Warming and Ventilating Coccany anc mounted on air euct damper actuators would not oper?te mecnanically accorcing to physical layouts as shown on American Warming and Ventilating drawings.
The switenes recuired cocosite cirection of rotation to actuate electrical contacts.
The camcers operated satisfactorily, but the status indication in the Main Control Room would not have been correct, whicn could confuse the control room operator and result in degradation of safe operation of the plant.
American Warming and Ventilating has pro-vided proper physical layout' drawings.
TVA is revising their drawings and will make field changes to nardware as required.
2.
Objectives The cojectives of this part of the inspection were to determine wnether NAMCO was aware of the problem and had:
a.
Performed an evaluation of the cause of the incorrect pnysical layout drawings; mace an assessment of generic considerations relative to other nuclear power plant units, and notified all affected customers.
b.
Assigned responsibility and isolementec a plan of corrective action and oreventive action to preclude repetition of the drawing error.
3.
Metnod of Accomolisnment The preceding oojectives were accomolisned in part by:
a.
Discussions with cognizant QA personnel at NANCO.
4 b.
Observation of the posted 10 CFR Part 21 and NAMCO's Part 21 reporting procedure.
c.
Review of NAMCO's catalog for commercial snap-lock limit switches to identify the series EA170-41100 and EA170-42100 switches, identified in TVA's report.
d.
Telephone conversation on 10-29-80 with Mr. Jerry Price, the TVA Bellefonte project engineer at Knoxville.
e.
Telephone conversation on 10-31-90 with Mr. Don Sloan, QA Manager at American Warming & Ventilating Company.
4 Findinos a.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
b.
Other Findings - Comments (1) The limit switch problem concerned NANCO Type 170,;.120 and 170-42100 switenes wnich are right and left hand type of the same switen.
These switches are a heavy duty commercial type, and are not furnished by NAMCO for designated nuclear service.
The NAMCO QA management indicated they are unable to identify the end use of this type of switch by their customers.
(2) NAMCO has four types of IEEE IE cualified limit switenes for nuclear service and the Sellefonte switches were not of tne IE qualified types.
(3) The limit switch problem experienced at the TVA Bellefonte site does not appear to be a NAMCO problem, but instead l
appears to lie with the American Warming and Ventilating
~
l Comoany, wno furnished the dampers and actuators, and mounted the limit switches.
D.
Exit Interview 1.
The inspector met with the persons denoted in Paragraph A, at the conclusion of tne inspection on October 30, 1980.
2.
The following suojects were discussed:
a.
Areas inspected.
l I
o 5
b.
Action on the previously identified deviation.
c.
Inspection fincings identified in this report.
3.
Managements questions related t) the above subjects.
l l
l l
I I
. _.