ML20003D954
| ML20003D954 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/09/1980 |
| From: | Barnes I, Roberds H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003D947 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900031 NUDOCS 8104010603 | |
| Download: ML20003D954 (5) | |
Text
-
O U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSICN OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900031/80 Program No. 51300 Company:
Bingham-Willamette Company 2800 N. W. Front Avenue Portland Oregon 97210 Inspection Conducted: October 6-9, 1980 Inspector: Y/fl nh A,:./Wif
~H. w. Ro6Vros, contractor Ins;ector
/ Cate ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Approved by:
No.a
<=/?/rc I. Barnes, Chief Gate Components Sectic-Vendor Inspection dranch Summary Inspection on October 6-9, 1980 (99900031/80-01)
Areas Insoected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B and applicable codes and standards including:
follow-up on regional request, 10 CFR part 21 report follcw-up, and follow-up on headquarters request.
The inspection involved twenty-four (24) inspector hours on site by one (1) NRC inspector.
Results:
In the three areas inspected, three (3) deviations from commitments
~
were identified.
There were no unresolved items.
Deviations:
Follow-up on Regional Request - Design change review and approval not in conformance with the requirements of Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and the QA Manual (Notice of Deviation, Item A).
10 CFR Part 21 Report Follow-up -
Nondestructive examinations not performed in conformance with the reouirements of Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and the QA Manual (Notice of Deviation, Item B).
Follow-up on Headquarters Request - Quality assurance program require-ments imoosed on a supplier not in conformance with the requirements of Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and Stone & Webster Specification (Notice of Deviation, Item C).
j g
0\\D
2
'0ETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted
- 0. Patty, Vice President and General Manager
- J. Boys, Plant Manager
- R. Johnson, Purchasing Manager
- E. Zerr, Materials Manager
- R. Logan, Contracts Manager
- B. Schultz, Superintendent, Pump Assembly
- J. Odoms, QA Engineering Supervisor
- C. Reese, QC Engineer F. Reeder, Supervisor, 3urchasing
- 0. Baker, Contract Administrator G. Miller, NDE Foreman & Level III Examiner W. Young, Supervisor, Purchasing D. Frantz, Buyer, Purchasing
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
B.
Follow-uo on Regional Recuest 1.
Introduction A spare impeller (rotating) assemoly was instal!ed in a motor driven emergency feed water pump 18 at the VC Summer site.
The assembly was manufactured by Bingham Willamette Co. (SWC) and after reassembly the pump seized during manual rotation.
Inspection revealed that the center sleeve between the 4th and 9th stages of the rotating assembly was held in place on the shaft by two (2) set screws.
It was suspected that the sleeve had shifted causing the pump to seize.
~
2.
Insoection Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to review the nature and scope of the reported discrepancies and determine if the problem had generic implications.
3.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of BWC sales order 14210472.
b.
Review of documentation for Shop Order No. 15118018.
3 c.
Review of Drawing No. B15201A.
4.
Findings a.
Deviation frcm Ccmitments See Notice of Ceviation, Item A b.
Unresolved Items Ncne.
c.
Ccmments As a result of this inspection and information provided by Region II, it appears that the pump sei;:ed en manual rotaticn, as
~
a result of not being properly lubricated when reassembled by the licensee.
It is therefere concluded that the set screws were not a contributory factor to the failure and a generic problem does not exist.
C.
10 CFR Part 21 Recort Follow-uo 1.
Introduction 1
As a result of an internal audic', BWC discovered that they had produced and shipped two seal assemblies for primary coolant pumps, which had been radiographed using penetramaters that were not in ccmpliance with Section III of the ASME Code.
One assembly was shipped to SMUD - Rancho Seco site and one assembly shirped to Duke Pcwer, Cconee site.
The assembly j
shipped to the Oconee sito was returned to EWC and re-radiographed using the correct penetrameters and fcund acceptable.
2.
Inspection Objectives
~
The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain that the evaluation, corrective acticn, and report of the defect or failure to comply are adequate and in conformance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 and associated procedures.
3.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
Review of BWC letter of May 9,1980, reporting the nonccmpliance, a.
b.
Review of radiographic procedure H12.3.41 of 6-19-79.
c.
Review of Crawing No. 0-18970.
4 d.
Review of radiographic procedure H12.3.38.
e.
Review of twenty (20) production radiographs.
f.
Review of Procedure for Reporting of Safety Related Nonccmpliances and Defects No. A 14.0 Revisien 1.
4.
Findings a.
Deviation from Commitments See Notice of Deviation, Item B.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
c.
Comments BWC has committed to establish a technique radiograph utilizing the penetrameters used on the original ~ radiograph and the required penetrameters to demonstrate that the radiographic sensitivity was attained to meet tne ASME Code requirement.
A ccmpletion date of March 1,1981, was established for the corrective action relative to the seals installed at the Rancho Seco site.
This 10 CFR Part 21 report remains open pending a review of tne technique radiographs.
D.
Follow-uc on Headquarter's Reouest 1.
Introduction On September 25, 1979, Virginia Electric and Power Company reported, as required by 10 CFR 21, in apparent casting defect in the shaft bearing housing for the No.'.h Anna Unit 3 Auxiliary Feed Water Pump Motor.
A visual observation of oil on the floor in the pump storage area led to an investigation that showed a defect in the casting for the lower reservoir of the shaft drive end bearing on a Westinghouse motor, 3AF-P2A, supplied to Bingham-Willamette Company.
2.
Insoection Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to review the nature and scope of the reported discrepancies and determine if the problem had generic implications.
t 3.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of Stone & Webster Specification No. NAS-3013.
l
5 b.
Review of BWC Purchase Order No. 1-10091 of 3/23/73.
c.
Review of correspondence file for P.O. 1-10091.
d.
Review of Westinghouse Purchase Order No. P.O. 51505.
4.
Findings a.
Deviation from Commitments See Notice of Deviation, Item C.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
c.
Comments As of the date of this inspection corrective action has not been initiated to repair the recorted deficiencies. Westinghouse Electric Corporation performed a preliminary inspection of four units built on Shop Order Nos. 75F94054 and 75F95055 and verified the discrepancies in a report dated October 19, 1979.
Westinghouse SMD Field Service manager recommended repair of the leaking casting by grinding off or drilling and filling with ccmpound.
There is no documented evidence that SWC was ever notified of the scope and nature of the discrepancy and apparently all co respondence was between Vepco and Westinghouse.
It was also noted BWC did not identify the drivers for the North Anna unit 3 auxiliary feed pump motors as safety related although a duplicate order for pump motors for Surry 3 & 4 were identified as safety related.
Westinghouse identified this discrepancy in two letters to BWC dated January 22, 1975, and April 15, 1975.
~
E.
Exit Meeting A post inspection meeting was held on October 9, 1980, with the management representatives denoted in paragraph A above.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
Management acknow-ledged the statements of the inspector with respect to the findings as presented to them and affirmed their commitment to the quality assurance program.