ML19350C299
| ML19350C299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/28/1981 |
| From: | Kelley W, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350C295 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900720 NUDOCS 8103310885 | |
| Download: ML19350C299 (9) | |
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Recort No. 39900720/80-01 Progra::: No. 51400 Comoany:
Terry Cor: oration Lamcerton Road P. O. Box 555 Windsor, Conneticut 06095 Inspection Conducted:
October 23-24, 1980 Inspector:
(
FY hw ??/f?/
.1 a wm. D. Kelley, Contractor Insc ter f Qate Vender Inspection Branch
/
'j).
Accraved b,. M s. [ W,j-j/j.
~
as ff Mg1
- 0. E. wnitesell, Cnief, Date' ComcenentsSection I Vendor Inscection Brancn Summary Inspection en October 23-24, 1980 (99900720/20-01)
Areas Inscected:
Imolementation of 10 CFR 50, Accencix B and acplicaole codes anc standarcs, conduct an initial management meeting, and review pertinent documents and records ' relating to construction deficiencies reported by Davis-Besse, V. C. Summer, and South Texas, to detarmine the cause, and verify whether appropriate corrective action has been procerly implemented.- The inspection involved ten (10) hours by one inspector.
In the three (3) areas inspected, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
810 3 3 to fl5
_.~
2 4
DETAILS A.
. Persons Contactad Terry Corcoration (TC)
J. Camisia, QC Representative
- R. T. Hebert, Supervisor Utility Marketing
- H. McNeill, Manager of Nuclear Products
- R. A. Neeld, Vice President & Secretary
- H. J. Sirois, Manager Nuclear Products H. Smith, QC Representative
- R. R. Theraux, Service Manager
- H. Wainscott, Corporation Quality Control Manager
- Denotes those persons who attended the exit interview (See paragraph F) 8.
Initial Management Meeting 1.
Objectives The objectives of this meeting were to acccmolish the following:
a.
To meet with the Terry Corporation (TC) management and those persons responsible for the administration of their Quality Assurance program, and to establisn enannels of communication.
o.
To determine the extent of the company's involvement in the commercial nuclear business.
c.
To explain NRC direct inspection program including the LC/IP
- organitation, VIS inspection method and documentation.
2.
Method of Acccmolishment The p eceding objectives were accomplished by a meeting on October 23, 1980.
The.following is a summary.of the meeting:
a.
Attendees were:
J. Camissa, Quality Control Reoresentative.
R. T. Hebert, Supervisor Utility Marketing H. McNeill, Manager Nuclear Products R. A. Neeld, Vice President and Secretary H. Smith, Quality Control Representative ~
R. R. Theraux, Service Manager H. Wainscott, Corporate Quality Control Manager I
3 b.
The VIB organization was described and its relationship to NRC Region IV and the NRC Heacquarters.
c.
The LCVIP function was described including tne raasons 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 inspec-tions results are documented and reported, and what the responses to reports, should include.
How croprietary information is handled, the Public Document Room, and the White Book were also explained.
e.
The company's contribution to the nuclear industry was dis. :ssed including current and projected activities.
3.
Results Management acknowledged the NRC presentation as being understood by them, and provided the insoector with the following information concerning the company's activities anc products.
a.
The TC does not hold an ASME Cartificate of Authorization.
Their steam turoines and recuction gearing do not fall uncer tne jurisdiction of the ASME Codes.
b.
The TC-Windsor plant manuf actures steam turoinas anc recuction gears for the power and industrial uses, the U. 5. Navy, and marine use.
TC's contribution to the nuclear industry represents approximately five (5) percent of its total work load.
c.
_There is no Authorited Inscection Agency requirement as all inspection is performed by the customer. or his desigr.ated representative.
C.
10 CFR 21 Followuo (Turbine Governor Valve) 1.
Backcround On-Novemcer 16, 1977, Toledo Edison Comoany (TECO) filed a report with NRC, Region III, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21.
The recort documents that on Octocer 16, 1977, the governor valve on turoine 1-2, was found closed when it should have been open.
The cause was
. attributed to excessive vibration of an adjacent startup. feed pump
.which caused the governor control valve on the auxiliary feed pump turoine 1-2 to close, although the turbine was not in service.
TECO's evaluation that the deviation was determined to be a defect as defined
A by 10 CFR 21 is based on the potential for the control valves on both auxiliary feed pumo turbines being inacvertently closed by excessive vibrations induced from unicentifiec sources, thus prevent-ing the turcines frem coming up to sceed wnen needed.
On March 7, 1980, South Carolina Electric anc Gas Ccmoany (SCEGC) filed a final 10 CFR 50.55(e) recort to NRC, Region II relating to an identical prcclem icentifiec at tne Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station.
2.
Obiectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain wl. ether the design and manufacture of tne turcir.e cecocnents are teing centrolled by a cuality assurance systen wnica is consistent with tne recuirements of NRC rules anc regulation anc centract cocuments.
Also to ascertain whether the recorted defect had been evaluated, its generic imcact determinec and tne involved nuclear custcmers notified and accropriate corrective action has been or will be taken.
3.
Metnod of Accomolishment The foregoing ocjectives were accccclisnec by:
a.
Review of Terry Corporation's (70) Nuclear Quality Ccntrol Manual
-(QCM),. Revision 0, to verify thct TC has cccumentec its cuality system in writing and trovides measures for controllfrg tne design, manufacuture, inscection and tests of nuclear items in a sanner consistent with 10 CFR 50, Appendix 3, ano concract requirements.
b.
Review o' QAM,Section VII, " Control of Purchased Material, Equipment: and _ Services," 'to verify that sucpliers are surveyed or otherwise~ qualified,.and that-items are purchased frem sucpliers on tne qualified vendors list.
c.
Review of QAM,Section VV, "Nonc0nforming Materiais, Parts, or Components," to verify that. measures have been established to report, identify, segregate, evaluate and cisposition concon-forming items in a manner whien will prevent the inadvertent use of nonconforming items in nuclear contracts.
4 0 '
ii
5 d.
Review of TC's " Report of Potential Safety Hazard, 10 CFR 21,"
cated December $1,1977.
The report attributed tne cause for the valve to clo-e wnen subjected to excessive vibration, as being due to the unbalanced linkage weignts. The evaluation recommenced that a method be develoced anc cesignec wnica would prevent the control valve from closing wnen subjected to excessive vibration wnen the unit was not in service.
The TC report directs engineering to " devise a retrofit kit for field modifications of all affected units.
Upon availacility of the kits, customers are to be notified of the design imorove-ments and correction oracecure."
e.
Review of TC's inter-office memorandum, daned January 25, 1973, which identifies v serial numcer tne five turbines requiring spring loading modifications.
Two of the five units were for foreign reactors.
The remaining tnree were for TECO, SCECE and Millstone Two.
The memo also cocuments that appropriate
'nstructions were ceing precared to ensure proper installation of the retrofit kit.
f.
Review of TC's letter to Nortneast Nuclear Enstgy Comoany, cated February 21, 1978, informing tnem ci the proolem that had been experienced and cescribing tne socification recommencec and the retrofit kit whicn would be furnisned and installed at no cost.
g.
Review of TC's lettar to SWC dated October 30, 1973, acvising the company of the prob;em exoerienced, and tne corrective action required on the pr'me mover of the pump BWC was succlying to SCEGC and requesting shipping and marking instructions so that TC-could forward the parts and appropriate instructions for installation by site personnel, h.
Review of TC's letter to SCEGC (Virgil C. Sumner Nuclear Station),
documenting a telegnone conversation with reference to the retro-fit kit to modify the valve linkage on the auxiliary feed oumo turbine S/NT 38765A, and requesting confirmation from SCEGC wnen the retrofit was completed.
i.
Review of TC's drawing Numcer 1129350, Revision 0, datad Novemcer 30, 1977, title "Assy, Governor Lever Soring, "delfreating the installation of a spring wnich preloads the valve linkage to resist any imposed vibration from closing the valve wnen the
. turbine is not in service.
j.
Review of TC's letter to NRC Headquarters dated Novemcer 5, 1979, reporting the generic imoact and status of '."'s corrective action concerning.the cefect reported by TECO on No'emcer 16, 1377 in compliance with 10 CFR 21.
L o
m
6 k.
Review of SCEGC's letter to NRC Region II dated March 7, 1980 euemitting its final report on the same proclem, at Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station.
This had initially been reported to NRC Region IV on Octoberl7, 1979 in accorcance witn 10 CFR 50.55(e).
The letter also documents that the corrective action taken by using the TC retrofit kit hac ceen comoleted at Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station during February 1980.
1.
Discussions with cognizant TC engineering and management oersonnel.
4 Findings From the documents reviewed and the information octained during discussions, determinatio.s we.re made as follows:
a.
In the areas inspected, no irregulari ies or ceviations from t
TC's quality prograo, or the customer's tecnnical requirements were identified.
b.
The potential of external vibration was not identified in the Technical Specifications or other purcnase cccuments.
c.
TC evaluated the problem, ceterreined ts generic impact, provided acpropriate corrective action, modified its drawings to preclude recurrence, and notified all of its involvec nuclear custcmers,'and otherwise discharged its recuirements under 10 CFR 21 in a ressonsible manner.
D.
Recorted Construction Deficiency (Uncualified Motors on Trio anc Throttle Valves)
===1.
Background===
On April 10, 1980, Houston Lighting and Power (HP&L) phoned tha NRC Resident Inseector (RI) at South Texas Project (STP), to recort a potential construction deficiency, in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55(e).
The problem descrT5ed in the report, concerns the lack of qualifi-cations of the motors operating the trip and throttle valves on the turbines driving the auxiliary feedwater pumos.
The turoines were manufactured by Terry Corporation (TC) and the throttle and trip valve motor operators '.ere manufactured by Limitorque Corporation (LO).
The licensee recorts trat Soecification No. 35149MSO43-0, Section 3.3.2.2 requires all electrical devices neeced for the tureine to be qualified to those requirements for Class IE' equipment as specified by IEEE 323 and 344
7 2.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inscection were to ascertain wnether the specification referenced in the HL&P recort was incluced in the customer's procurement documents for the auxiliary feecwater pumo drive turbine.
Also to ascertain wnether the evaluation of the prcelem is documented and the generic imcact cetermined and dispositioned in a manner consistent with NRC rules and regulations.
3.
Method of Accomolishment The foregoing Objectives were accomclished by:
a.
Review of Specification No. 3S149MS043-0, dated March 29, 1977, to verify that the specification was precerly acproved and certified. Also to ascertain the technical requirements specified by the customer included the service environmental conditions and the qualifications of the turcine equicced electrical devices.
b.
Review of TC's Evaluation Report No.15, dated Acril 14, 1980,
.hich concluded that the Orcolem was not recertacle uncer 10 CFR 21.
The evaluation was based en two (2) concitions:
(1) The motor Operater control panels were not comaleted, anc tested, and tnerefore not shipced.
(2) The operators would function under the environmental conditions identified in the purchase specificatien.
The requirements of (LC Report 3-0009) was not included nor referenced in any purchase dccuments.
c.
Review of TC's letter to Brown & Root, Inc. (S&R), dated April 9,
.1980, which stated that TC had reviewed the B&R technical speci-fications and the valve ocerators are acceptable for the stated environmental service conditions.
d.
Review of a TWX frca TC-Windsor to TC-Houston, directing the turbine throttle and trip motor operated valves to be returned
-to Windsor to change cut and test the LC motor cperators.
e.
Discussions tith cognizant TC persennel.
4
' Findings
-In discussion the cause of the HP&L recorted potential construction deficiency concerning, the qualification of the motor operators, TC informed the inspector of the following:
8 a.
TC's bid proposal specified LC motor operator's which had been qualified to IEEE 323 and 344; however, i. a cost ordar coordina-tion meeting HP&L stated that only the tr o solenoid nad to meet i
IEEE 323 requirements.
b.
The valves were suoplied witn
'.C SMB-000-5 motor operators wnicn are identical to those supolied for installation in over eighty (80) nuclear plants and it is TC's technical evaluation that tne model LC motor operator meets 3&R's tecnnical specification and/or purchase documents.
c.
The reported deficiency that the motor operators do not meet the requirements of the contract, does not accear to be consis-tant with the test recuirements agreed uoan during the post order coordination meeting with HP&L.
However, tnere was no contract revision or contract Variance Request documents avail-able to support this claim.
d.
10 CFR Part 21 was imposed on TC by S&R in an accencum to the purchase documents.
It was verified that TC had evaluated the recorted deficiency e.
in accordance with their acplicable pic:ecure anc issued Recort No.15 "Recort of Potential Safety Hazarc,10 CFR Part 21" and cetermined that it cicn't constitute a recortable safety hazarc, and so notified 3&R.
f.
It was verified that the turbine throttle and trip motor operated valve had been returned to TC-Windsor plant and the SMB-000-5 motor operators replace with a LC model wnich is acceptable to B&R.
TC had requested B&R to accurately define certain environmental service requirements to enable TC to document the acceptability of the original motor operator; hcwever, B&R had rot responded at the time of the inscection.
5.
Corrective action
'It was verified that TC-Windsor sent a TVX to TC Hout
, Texas dated Octocer 3,1980, directing the turbine throttle d trip soter coerated valves be correctly tagged and returnea to TC-Windsor plant for cnanging, adjusting, setting, and testing, tne reolacement motor operators.
The motor operators were cnanged in the TC-Windsor in order for TC to assure themselves that the work was cone cor-rectly and procerly documented.
The new motor coerators had been determined to be acceptable by the custcmer.
The failure of S&R to orovide the environmental service requirements will be evaluated by-the NRC IE RIV Program Evaluation Section at S&R.
L
9 4
7.
Generic Imoact The HL&R reported deficiency is unique to their nuclear site and TC has met their nuclear customer's technical specification and/or purchase documents for approximately eignty (80) units.
E.
Exit Interview At-the conclusion of the special inspection on October 24, 1980, 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 had no additional ccmments.
.