ML20005A186
| ML20005A186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/07/1981 |
| From: | Chamberlain D, Costello J, Foster W, Fox D, Hale C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005A179 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900403 NUDOCS 8106300020 | |
| Download: ML20005A186 (26) | |
Text
l O
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900403/81-01 Program No. 51100 Company:
General Electric company Nuclear Energy Business Group 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Inspection at:
San Jose, California Inspection Conducted:
March 9-13, 1981 Inspectors:
D ). h,dDI, M3/f/
J. R Castello, Contractor Inspector Date R
or Systems Section Vendor Inspection Branch
~
\\3Th y /3 /81
- 0. F. Fox, Contractor Inspector Date Reactor Systems Section Vendor Inspection Branch l
{>
h N$l
- 0. O. Chamcertain, Contractor Inspector Date Reactor Systems Section Vendor Inspection Branch
~~
W. E. Pqster, Contractof Ins $ector Date Reactive Section Vendor Inspection Brancn Approved by:
C. J. Hale, CMef Oate i
Reactor Systems Section Vendor Inspection Branch j
i 810 6 30 0 O%O i
--c
,,,e,
2 S,ummary Inspection March 9-13, 1981 (99900403/81-01)
Areas Insoected:
Implementation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B and Topical Report NED0-11209-04A in the areas of design interfaces, design verificaticn, evaluation
~
of supplier performance, supplier nonconformance and corrective action, audits, manufacturing process control, technical personnel background verification, follow up on regional requests, and Part 21 report follow up.
The inspection involved 111 inspector hours on site by four NRC inspectors.
R'esul ts:
In the nine areas inspected, five nonconformances and one unresolved item were identified.
Nonconformances:
Follow up on Regional Request - Responsible engineer did not assure tnat ASME Code effective dates and Code Cases were referenced in design docu-mentation released for procurement (Notice of Nonconformance enclosure, item A).
Audits - Audit Report NEPO 80-1 was not issued within 30 days of post audit conference, bimonthly report of status of committed corrective action is overdue and not yet issued, and listings of persons contacted during pre-audit and post audit meeting were not included in audit report.
(Notice of Noncon-formance enclosure, item B).
Design Interfaces - Approximately 45 percent of Engineering Review Memorandums examined were signed by the responsible manager prior to completion of review (Notice of Nonconformance enclosure, item C).
Evaluation of Supplier Performance
" Established and Potential Supplier List" had not been updated and issued twice a year (Notice of Nonconformance enclosure, item 0).
Supplier Nonconformance and Corrective Action - Identification numbers of deviation disposition requests (DDRs) were changed without exhibiting the required. dated initials of the QC Engineer and were voided without noting the replacement 00R number (Notica of Nonconformance, enclosure, item E).
Unresolved Item:
The inspector could not determine that the Quality Assurance Program requirements imposed by the General Electric Company on the suppliers of spare and renewal parts meet current NRC requirements.
(See DetailsSection III, paragraph B.3.b.).
g I
n.
3 DETAILS SECTION I (Prepared by J. R. Costelio)
A.
Persons Contacted E. G. Blake, Manager Professional Resources W. C. Cohn, Manager Quality Control Engineering, Vessels, Internals and Hest Exchangers M. F. Copper, Buyer D. H. Currie, Manager Quality Systems Audits and Records K. I. Curry, Specialist Quality Notifications and Audits
- 0. R. Erie, Senior Engineer, Quality Assurance
- A. I. K12noff, Manager Product Assurance D. G. Long, Manager Quality Systems N. J. Music, Manager Indirect Material Purchasing P. E. Novak, Manager Engineering Systems V. W. Pence, Principal Engineer, Nuclear Products Systems Engineering Division
- W. R. Perrault, Manager Quality Control Engineer, Valves and Piping Components
- R. J. Valencia, Audit Coordinator E. D. Wiggins, Manager Purchasing Computation and Controls D. L. Wright, Quality Control Engineer R. F. Wright, Quality Control Engineer
- Denotes those present at exit meeting.
B.
Technical Personnel Backgroun Verification d
1.
Objectives To verify that maasures have been established and are effectively implemented that assure:
a.
The education and work experience information contained in employee's job applications are being verified by the employing organization.
b.
There is objective and docuaented evidence / records that attest j
to the employee's education and experience.
2.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by examination of:
a.
General Electric Professional Resources Practices and Procedures No. 471-2 entitled " Verification of Professional Qualifications,"
Revision 0, dated 11/3/80.
O f
I l
~
4 b.
Memorandum from H. E. Stone to J. Barnard dated March 6, 1980, subject " Verification of Employee Qualifications."
c.
Personnel files of three technical employees who had accepted offers of employment.
3.
Findings Following an acceptance of an offer of employment by a candicate external to the GE system, GE issues a request for educational verification to the institution where the candidate indicates his highest degree was attained.
Also, after acceptance of a job cffer GE sends a request for employment verification to at least one former employee.
This request is not sent when the former emnlayment is in the armed services and is not sent if the current empiayer is the only employer the candidate has ever had.
GE does nec contact the current employer.
A follow up on these requests is nade 30 days after the date of the request.
The office of professional resources does not attempt to verify the registration of registered professicnal engineers.
GE uses contract employees or temporary technical personnel.
They do not attempt to verify the qualifications of these personnel, instead they rely on the agency supplying the personnel to do this.
GE has contracts with 49 firms to supply technical personnel; copies of IE Circular No. 80-22 were sent to these firms and replies were received from 33 indicating that they could meet the intent of the circular.
GE does not obtain a signed release at the present time from the prospective employee authorizing the former emoloyer or educational institution to release or verify information to GE.
This present method of seeking previous employment history without a signed employee information release has drawbacks in todays atmosphere of employee rights to privacy.
GE employees are subject ts a regular appraisal of performance and action to remedy substarJard performance.
If it is discovered that information prese.ited by the employee is inconsistent with that received from the educational institution or previous employer, the falsification will be handled on a case-by-case basis with the Manager, Professional Resources acting as counsel.
i l
l s
I i
5 Examination of the personnel files at this time were inconclusive because of the recent origin of this program and inadequate time to get information back from educational institutions and former employers.
This will be followed up during the next regular 7
inspection.
C.
Follow Up On Regional Requests In this area of inspection, two regional requests were reviewed.
1.
A copy of Engineering Instruction E.I. No. 120-3178 "G" with hand written information or. it was observed by a Region IV inspector during a recent inspection of GE Wilmington.
This E.I. was issued by GE San Jose and arpeared to have been processed incorrectly.
Follow up during th's inspection disclosed that there had been a violation of procecures, see Notice of Nonconformance enclosure, item A.
Prior to completion of the inspection, GE took the following actions
, to correct this problem, so no further written response is required.
(a) The Engineering Instruction has been corrected to provide proper information.
(b) A quality assurance newsletter has been issued calling attention to the requirement to provide ASME Code effective dates and Code Cases.
(c) Every Engineering Instruction now issued must go through a quality control check point and this requirement is being specifically checked.
(d) All previously issued Engineering Instructions are being checked to see if this condition exists elsewhere.
2.
Region IV management requested the inspector to determine the present status of fuel grapple assemblies plus Millstone feedwater spargers and thermal sleeve assemblies purchased from Marvin Engineering Company.
The fuel grapple assemblies were classified as Category I safety related items and were purchased from Marvin Engineering Company on GE purchase order 282-KF295.
The Millstone feedwater spargers and thermal sleeve assemblies were not classified as Category I safety related, but Northeast Utilities asked GE to purchase them as Category I safety related items.
The feedwater spargers and i
thermal sleeve assemblies were purchased from Marvin Engineering Corporation on GE purchase order 205-AL709.
s 5
e
6 Purchase order 282-KF295, dated August 10, 1978, was issued to Marvin Engineering Company who had been qualified by the NEC&ID organization of GE to supply fuel grapple assemblies which were classified Category I safety related.
Subsequent inspections and follow up raised serious doubts about the quality of the fuel grapple assemblies and the ability of the supplier to perform as a Category I supplier during the time frame of this purchase order.
The six fuel grapple assemblies were eventually sent to GE San Jose, where GE expected to be able to repair them and test them as Category I items.
The six fuel grapple assemblies were reinspected and the reinspection results are recorded in GE Inspection Reports RN831 thru RN836.
After the reinspection, GE decided to scrap the six fuel grapple assembles.
These fuel grapple assemblies had been purchased as spares and no new purchase order has been issued to replace them.
The author-ization to scrap was made on 12/10/80 on scrap ticket 05a84.
Purchase Order 205-AL709 dated January 5, 1979, for feedwater spargers and thermal sleeve assemblies was issued to Marvin Engineering Company who had not been qualified by the QAEE&I organization of GE to supply Categorf I safety related items.
The items were bought as nonsafety-essential items, but Northeast Nuclear Energy Company had requested they be purchased as Category I.
Supplementary requirements were placed on Marvin Engineer'.ng Company to obtain the rough equivalent of Category I QA program requirements.
Discussions were conducted between GE, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company and NRC and it was finally decided in a two day meeting (conducted at Hartford, Co. and Bethesda, MO on April 15-16, 1980) that the Millstone feedwater spargers and thermal sleeve assemblies would be reinspected and reworked at Marvin Engineering Company.
On July 1, 1980, QAEE&I approved Marvin Engineering Company as a Category I safety related supplier.
i
'In the rework program on the feedwater spargers all material that did not have traceability was retested, or scrapped and replaced.
The thermal sleeves failed X-ray tests and were scrapped and replaced.
The feedwater sparger assemblies were reworked on GE purchase order 205 YA274 and were accepted on Product Quality Certification i
No. 201-2-44, dated 9/30/80.
The thermal sleeve assemolies were replaced on GE purchase order 205 YA267 and accepted on a Product Quality Certification dated 9/30/80.
The units have since been j
shipped to the Millstone plant.
i o
l
7 0.
Audits 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of inspection were to verify that:
a.
An audit system is established and is being implemented that has organizational independence, authority and is_ documented in procedures and/or instructions in accordance with commitments.
b.
Audits are based on a written plan, a specific schedule, and members of t% aedit team are qualified and are independent of any direct r43no".sibility for the activities being audited.
c.
Audit reports are prepared and contain the audit scope, identi-fication of auditors, persons or organizations contacted, summary of details of any nonconformances noted, recommendations for correction and provisions for verification, and distribution of the report to responsible management.
- 2. ' Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by an examination of:
a.
General Electric Quality Assurance Topical Report NED0-11209-04A.
b.
Engineering Operating Procedures E0P 75.3.00 (Engineering Audits) and E0P 75-4.00 (Product Quality).
Quality Control Standing Instructions QCM l.2.17 (Supplier Quality c.
System Audits, Records, and Corrective Action) ~' 'CSI 7.2.37 (Training Evaluation and Certification of Pers'
..).
d.
Nuclear Energy Business Group Procedure NEBG 70-29 (Quality Assurance, Nuclear Safety and Nuclear Material Safegards Audits),
e.
Engineered Equipment Procurement Section Procedure EEPS-1 (Internal Audit Procedure).
f.
Product and Quality Assurance Operation Procedures P&QA0 3.1, P&QA0 3.2, P&QA0 3.3, and P&QA0 3.4.
g.
Documents to verify implementation of quality assurance program commitments, procedural requirements, and to satisfy the intent of the objectives section.
These documents are as follows:
(1) 1979 and 1980 Internal Audit Plan for Engineering Ccmponents, Quality Assurance Section REO.
1'
P 8
(2) Master Audit Schedule, Quality Assurance Section, P&QA0 dated 2/ 12/81.
(3) P&QA0 Audit Corrective Action Performance Reports for January / February 1981.
(4) Audit Master Plan and Schedule, Product Assurance Section, P&QA0 dated 2/13/81.
(5) Approved Suppliers Listing, QAEE&I dated 3/3/81.
(6) Four lead auditor certifications for auditors in Quality Assurance Section, RE0; five lead auditor certifications for auditors in Quality Assurance Section P&QA0; seven lead auditor certifications for auditors in Product Assurance Section, P&QA0; and a random selection of eight lead auditor certifications out of 47 for auditors in QAEE&I, NEPO.
(7)
External Audits (a) Marvin Engineering Company, audited March 24-26, 1980.
Seven CARS (Correction Action Requests) issued.
(b) Associated Piping & Engineering Company and the Tempflex Division, audited February 17-20, 1981.
Four CARS issued.
(c) Anchor Darling Valve Company, audited March 25-28, 1980.
Two CARS and one recommendation issued.
(8) Internal Audits (a) Quality Assurance Section, Reliabilit', Engineering Operation:
QA 80-04, Deviation Dispasition Records; QA 80-05, Laboratory / Service Test Control; QA 80-07, Design Record File; and QA 79-05, Spare and Renewal Parts.
(b) Quality Assurance Section, Product and Quality Assurance Operation:
Q7904, Engineered Equipment Procure-ment Operation of the Nuclear Energy Engineering Division; l
9 Q8002, Nuclear Energy Procurement Operation; and Q8003, Nuclear Control and Instrumentation Department ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Quality Assurance Program.
(c) Product Assurance Section Product and Quality Assurance Operation:
P7908, Drafting Practices and Manual; P8001, Nuclear Power System Division Quality Assurance Program; and P8006, Engineered Equipment Design Contractors of Commercial Grade Items and Services.
(d) Quality Assurance Engineered Equipment and Installation, Nuclear Energy Purchasing Operation:
NEPO 80-1, Nuclear Energy Purchasing Operation.
3.
Findings One nonconformance was identified, see Notice of Nanconformance enclosure item B.
No unresolved or follow up items were identified.
In reviewing the audit reports of the Quality Assurance and Product Assurance sections of P&QAO, the inspector noted the excellent individ-ually prepared written plans used for these audits.
The inspector was informed that these plans require about two man months of prepara-tion. With the detail and thought put into these audit plans, there is a high degree of assurance that significant deficiencies will be found, and if none are found, the activity being audited will be satisfactory.
Qualification requirements for lead auditors vary with the different auditing sections but are in accord with GE commitments to the NRC.
QAAE&I is the only section following the qualification requirements of ANSI N45.2.23, which recently has been endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.146.
The QAAE&I qualification records for their 47 lead auditors are well documented and readily retriveable.
E.
Exit Meeting A meeting was conducted with management representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on March 13, 1981.
In addition to the individuals indi-cated by an asterisk in the Details Sections, those in attendance were:
i~J.-.--
- ~ - -
~-
m
10 J. Barnard, Manager, Product and Quality Assurance Operation A. Breed, Manager, Quality Assurance G. Callahan, Program Specialist D. H. Ferguson, Manager, Quality Assurance D. H. Krueger, Manager, Engineering Support Operation J. K. Powledge, Manager, Quality Assurance Engineered Equipment and Installation L V. Stonebraker, Specialist Quality Assurance The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspecton for those present at the meeting.
Management representatives acknowledged the statements of the inspector.
I l
i I
j
11 DETAILS SECTION II (Prepared by D. D. Chamberlain)
A.
Persons Contacted
- R. C. Boesser, Manager NPSD Technical and Administrative Programs L. S. Bohl, Manager of Design Review E. M. Derro, Lead System Engineer W. R. Jones, Senior Engineer J. A. Kahermanes, Senior Engineer NPSD Quality Assurance and Operating Methods R. T. Kern, Senior Electrical Engineer
- 0. E. Lee, Manager Quality Control NED/ESO C. E. Morris, Senior Project Engineer E. V. Na?.areno, Associate Engineer C. T. Nieh, Senior Engineer V. W. Pence, Principal Engineer J. R. Pobre, Senior Engineer G. J. Romanek, Engineer
- R. J. Valencia, Audit Coordinator Quality Control NED/ESO R. K. Waldman, Audit Coordinator for Engineering
- Denotes those present at exit meeting.
8.
Design Interfaces 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection for both internal and external interfaces were to determine that procedures have been established and implemented that:
Require that design organizations identify, in writing, their a.
interfaces for managing the flow of design information.
b.
Define and document the responsibilities of each organizational unit for the preparation, review, approval, distribution, and revisicn of documents involving design interfaces.
Establish methods for systematically communicating needed design c.
information, including changes thereto, across design interfaces as work progresses, d.
Require documentations of information transmitted between organi-zations which identified the status of the design information or documents and inccmplete items which require further evaluation, review or approval.
l l
O I
L e
12 Require that design information transmitted orally or by other e.
informal means is promptly documented, and the documentation confirmed and controlled.
f.
Identify the external organizations oroviding criteria, designs, I
specifications, and technical direction.
g.
Identify the positions and titles of key personnel in the communi-cations channel and their responsibilities for decision making, problem resolution, providing and reviewing information.
2.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by an examination of:
a.
General Electric Quality Assurance Topical Report, NED0-11209,04A b.
Engineering Operating Procedures:
(1) E0P 15-3.10 Review of Interface Procedures (2) E0P 20-4.00 Functional Interfaces (3) E0P 20.4.40 External Interface C&ID Engineering /NED (4) E0P 42-6.10 Engineering Document Issue and Application c.
External Interface Responsibilities, Procedure No.18-1.0.
d.
. Customer Document Control System (Computer listing of all engineering document transmittals) e.
Fourteen design drawings.
f.
Six Engineering Review Memorandum (detail check) g.
Thirty-eight Engineering Review Memorandum (spot check for proper sign off) h.
Six engineering cocument transmittal letters.
I 3.
Findings a.
Nonconformances, i
(
In this area of the inspection, one nonconformance was identified l
(See Notice of Nanconformance, enclosure Item C.).
I
~
e-w
, c
9 13 No response is required for Item C as corrective action and pre-ventive measures were taken before the end of the inspection.
The following actions regarding this item have or will be taken:
(1) The problem was identified in the Quality Assurance News I
Letter dated March 12, 1981, as " Manager Review on ERMs" (2; A Quality Control Checkpoint was established to include this as a check item on ERMs.
(3) Management committed to conduct a detailed audit or special inspection of this area no later than Fiscal Week 81ii i
t th the results to be formally documented and available for NRC review.
Relative to Item C, the inspector notes that for the Engineering Review Memorandum that were examined, the designated review was completed and all comments were resolved by tho responsible engineer prior to document issue.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
C.
Design Verification 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to determine that procedures have been established and are being implemented that:
a.
Identify individuals or groups who are authorized to perform design verification reviews.
b.
Require the results of the design verification effort to be clearly documented, with the identification of the verifier clearly indicated, and filed so they are identifiable to the document reviewed and can readily be retrieved.
c.
Require that the extent of design verification take into con-sideration the importance to safety, complexity, degree of standardization, state of the art, similarity with previously proven designs, applicability of standardized or previously proven designs, known problems and their effects, and changes to previously verified designs.
d.
Identify and document the method by which design verification is to be performed.
I
14 e.
Identify the items to be considered during design verification.by reviews including selection and incorporation of inputs, necessary assumptions, quality and QA reauirements, codes, standards, regu-lations, construction and operating experience, interfaces, design method used, comparison of output with input, item appifcation suitability, material compatibility, and maintenance features (see Section 6.3.1, N45.2.11).
f.
Prescribe the requirements for performing design verification by alternate calculations which shall include performance by a person or persons other than those who performed the original calculation, the review of appropriateness of assumptions, input data, and code or other calculation method used.
The selection of method shall provide results consistent with the original calculation.
g.
Prescribe the requirements for performing design verification by qualification testing which shall include requirements:
(1) For the identification, cocumentation, demonstration of the adecuacy of performance under the most adverse conditions, and consideration of all pertinent operating modes. Where the test is only intended to verify a specific design feature, the other features of the design shall be verified by other means.
j (2) That testing be performed in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate or reference the test require-ments, acceptance criteria limits and include provisions for assuring that prerequisities for the given test have been met, adequate instrumentation of the required range and accuracy is used, and that necessary monitoring is performed.
(3) That test results be documented and evaluated by the respons-ible designer and, if test results indicate that modifications to the itam are needed, these modifications shall be documented and the item modified, retested, or otherwise verified.
(4) That scali1g laws be established and verified for tests performed on models or mock-ups and the test configurations clearly defined and documented.
(5) That the results of model test work be subject to error analysis, where applicable, prior to use in final design.
2.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by an examination of:
0 8
i
en~+,-
e*
me e-15 a.
General Electric Quality Assurance Topical Report, NED0-11209-04A b.
Engineering Operating Procedures
~
I (1) E0P 40-7.00 n' 3ign Review Program (2) E0P 42-1.00 Introduction - Technology and Design Control (3) E0P 42-6.00 Independent Design Verification (4) E0P 42-10.00 Design Record Files (5) E0P 55-2.00 Engineering Change Control c.
Seven Engineering Review Memorandum (ERM) d.
Ten Engineering Change Notices (ECN) e.
Two Design Review Reports f.
Five Design Record Files (ORF) - Design Record Files containing documentation of verification activities.
3.
Findings In this area of the inspection, no nonconformances or unresolved items were identified.
f i
16 DETAILS SECTION III (Prepared by D. F. Fox) 7 A.
Persons Contacted
- N. E. Barclay, Senior Quality Engineer
- C. L. Buckner, Specialist, Quality Systems
- 0. H. Currie, Manager, Quality Systems, Audits and Records "J. M. Murray, Man iger, Procurement Support R. G. Pairman, Data Analyst
- W. R. Perrault, Manager, Quality Control Engineering
- R. E. Pingleton, Manager of Quality Systems
- J. D. Webster, Manager, Customer Quality Assurance
- Denotes those present at the exit meeting.
B.
Evaluation of Supolier Performance, Nonconformance, and Corrective Action 1.
Objectives a.
Evaluation of Supplier Performance The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that procedures have been established and implemented that provide for:
(1)
Initiation of pre-award and post-award activities, as necessary.
(2) Requiring the supplier to identify planning techniques and processes to be utilized in fulfilling procurement require-ments.
(3) Reviewing Purchaser and Supplier documents which are generated or processed during activities fulfilling procurement require-ments.
(4) Control of cnsnges in items or services.
b.
Supolier Nonconformance and Corrective Action The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that procedures for disposition of nonconformances and corrective action have been established and implemented that provide for:
(1) Identification, notification, control, review, and disposition of items or services that do not meet procurement document requiremercs by the purchaser and supplier.
1 3
-.n,
h 17 (2) Submittal of nonconformance notices to purchasers by supplier that include a recommended disposition and the technical justification.
(3) Purchaser disposition of supplier recommendations, verification of disposition, and maintenance of records of nonconformances.
(4) Timely review, evaluation and reporting to responsible manage-ment those conditions adverse to quality and for determining the cause, extent, and measures needed to correct and prevent their recurrence.
(5) Assuring and verifying that corrective action is implemented and maintained.
2.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review o the following documents to determine if procedures have d
been prepared, approved, and issued to prescribe a controlled system for the evaluation of supplier performance that is consistant will the commitments to NRC and objectives a(1) through a(4) and b(1) through b(5) above.
(1) Sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 15 and 16 of the NRC accepted GE (General Electric) Topical Report NEDO-11209 entitled
" Nuclear Energy Business Group BWR Quality Assurance Pro-gram Description" to determine the GE corporate commitments relative to evaluation and control of supplier performance, nonconformance, and corrective action.
(2) Applicable sections of the following manuals to determine if the GE corporate commitments relative to evaluation and control of supplier performance, nonconformance, and correc-tive action were correctly translated into policies and procedures that provide control over those implementing activities that affect the quality of the original design, and spare or renewal parts, that are within the GE scope of supply.
(a) BWR Quality Assurance Manual (22 sections).
(b) Engineered Equipment and Installation Quality Assurance Manual (Nine Quality Control Standing Instructions and one Engineered Equipment Procurement Practice and Procedure).
l (c) Control and Instrumentation Quality Assurance Manual (Nine Quality Assurance Procedures) and Manufacturing Manual (Eight Manufacturing Procedures).
s
18 (d) BWR Engineering Operating Procedures Manual (12 Procedures).
(e) Nuclear Services Operating Policy and Procedures Manual (11 Procedures).
b.
Selected records and documents of the original design, and spare and renewal parts orders, were examined for the following items during this inspection:
(1) Original design items, or portions thereof:
(a) Alarms and Controllers - Bailey Control Co.
(b) Circuit Breakers - GE Circuit Protective Device Div.
(c) Core Spray Lines - Murdock, Inc.
(d) Engineering Services - EDS Nuclear Ltd.
(e).HPCS Pumps - Bingham Willamette (f) Level Switches - Robertshaw Controls
- (i) Reactor Vessel Hardware - PMC Industries (j) Recirculation Pumps - Byron Jackson (k) Relief Valves - Crosby Valve and Gage
- (l) RCIC Pumps - Bingham Willamette (m) RCIC Valves - Anchor Darling
- 0enotes spare and renewal parts in addition to original equipment.
(2) Spare and renewal parts, or portions thereof:
(a) Control Rod Assemblies - GE Wilmington Del.
(b) CR0 Drive Mechanisms - GE Cleveland Ohio.
(c) HPCS Pumps - Byron Jackson.
(d) Safety Relief Valves - Shoreham.
e
'~
19 (e) Original equipment items identified by an asterisk above.
c.
The following documents were reviewed to determine if the quality assurance program for evaluation and control of supplier performance, nonconformance, and corrective action, is being effectively imple-mented by the current GE activities that affect the quality of the original design, and spare and renewal parts, that are within the GE scope of supply:
(1) Apparatus Requisitions (18).
(2) Corrective Action Requests and responses thereto (30).
(3) Certificate of Conformance (29).
(4) Customer Orders and GE Acceptance thereof (six).
(5) Deviation Disposition Requests (168).
(6) Orawings and Specifications (10).
(7) Fabrication Requirements document (one).
(8)
Instructions and Procedures (10).
(9) Material Requests (12).
(10) Project Work Authorizations (three).
(11) QA Requirements documents (10).
(12) QA Records Requirements documents (two).
(13) QA Records and data sheets (10).
(14) Recommended Spare Parts Lists (six).
(15) RFQ's Quotations, PO's and CN's (37).
(16) Supplier audit reports and evaluations thereof (32).
(17) Supplier QA Manuals and evaluations thereof (12).
(18) Supplier survey reports and evaluations thereof (six).
(19) Miscellaneous related documents (34).
3.
Findings a.
Nonconformances s
5
20 1
Two nonconformances were identified in this area of the inspection.
See Notice of Nonconformance, Items D. and E.
(1) With respect to, nonconformance 0, the inspector verified that corrective actions and preventive measures were accomplished or committed during the inspection.
Specifically:
an updated " Approved Supplier List" (the title of which superseeds the previously titled " Established and Potential Supplier List")
was issued on March 12, 1981.
A specific individual was assigned the responsibility for updating and issuing the list; a new Purchasing and Procedures Manual will be developed and issued to consolidate and control NEBG procurement and vendor interface activities by July 31, 1981.
(2) With respect to nonconformance E:
(a) The identification number of the following additional examined 00R's were changed without exhibiting the required dated initials of the QC Engineer:
24062; 24076; and 25376.
(b) The following additional examined 00R's were voided apparently without noting the replacement DDR number on the voided 00R:
25384 and 24248 through 24264.
(c) Seventeen of the examined 00R's were voided apparently without noting the reason on the DDR.
b.
Unresolved Item The inspector could not determine that the quality assurance program requirements imposed by General Electric on the suppliers of spare and renewal parts meet current NRC requirements.
i 21 OETAILS SECTION IV (Prepared by W. E. Foster)
A.
Persons Contacted M. Aikin, Editor - Employee Communication 2
A. Anderson, Supervisor - Quality Control
- N. E. Barclay, Engineer - Senior Quality (Systems Audits and Training)
O. C. Brown, Manager - Quality Assurance (Site Support)
C. L. Cobler, Manager - Production Following Engineering L. Converse, Shop Scheduler R. Draemel, Engineer - Manufacturing (Cable Shop)
E. M. Duke, Engineer - Senior Quality J. Flaherty, Specialist - Post Shipment Design B. P. Grim, Manager - Reactor Instrumentation and Protection Design
- C. W. Hart, Manager - Panel and Panel Modification Design Engineering W. W. Hoover, Specialist - Post Shipment Design R. 'J. Howard, Engineer - Project (Fermi 2)
- 0. E. Lee, Manager - Quality Control C. E. Morris, Engineer - Senior Project (Grand Gulf)
J. E. Morrissey, Manager - Manufacturing Engineering (Electrical Products)
H. R. Peffer, Manager - Project (La Salle) 4 "T. R. Regenie, Principal Engineer - BWR Safety Evaluation Programs P. J. Ryan, Sr., Engineer - Senior Manufacturing E. Sanchez, Supervisor - Process Control Engineering (Panel Shop)
D. Taylor, Specialist - Quality Assurance (Site Support)
R. K. Walaman, Program Manager - Engineering Programs
- Attended Exit Meeting.
- Telephone contact and attended exit meeting.
B.
Follow-up on Headquarters Requests
===1.
Background===
On December 3,1980, personnel of General Electric Company's Nuclear Power Systems Division advised personnel of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Headquarters, of flexible conduit grounding problems.
The problem results from failure to ensure a low-resistance path to ground and could cause " hot shorts" in the Reactor Protection Jysten.
The flexible conduit in question is used in a'l Power Generation Control Complex (PGCC) installations at several nuclear power generating stations.
i "M
I n
n-.
e-
,p,-
4 &
22 2.
Objectives o
The objectives of tnis area of the inspection were to verify that adequate corrective actions and preventive measures had been taken or planned, regarding the PGCC flexible conduit grounding problem.
3.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Reviewing the following General Electric Company Nuclear Power Systems Division's letters to verify that purchasers of PGCCs 4
had been notified of the flexible conduit grounci. J prcblem; dated:
(1) December 2, 1980; To: Mr. R. J. Shovlin, Assistant Project Director - Susquehanna;
Subject:
Grounding of Flexible
- Conduit, (2) December 15, 1980; To:
Clinton Power Station Documents /
Record Center;
Subject:
Grounding of Flexible Conduit, (3) December 3,1980; To: Mr. H. A. Putre, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company;
Subject:
Flexible Conduit Grounding, and (4) December 30, 1980; To:
Mr. R. L. Scott, Bechtel Corporation;
Subject:
Grounding of Flexible Conduit.
b.
Reviewing General Elect.*ic Company Nuclear Power Systems Division's letter dated February 6, 1981, To:
Mr. V. Stello, Jr., USNRC;
Subject:
Grounding of Flexible Conduit; to. verify that corrective actions and preventive measures had been planned.
c.
Interviewing cognizant personnel.
4.
Findings a.
Comments (1) No +;,conformances or unresolved items were identified during this area of the inspection.
(2) The schedule for implementing corrective action is:
(a)
Issue a grounding requirement document for plants in the design and manufacturing phases by June 30, 1981, and 8
23 (b)
Issue, Field instructions to correct shipped plants (Limerick 1 and 2; Susequehanna 1 and 2; Grand Gulf 1 and 2; Clinton 1 and 2, Perry 1 and 2; and Hanford
- 2) by July 3, 1981.
C.
Follow-up on Regional Requests 1.
Backcround a.
On November 4, 1980, Mississippi Power and Light Company personnel notified personnel of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region II, of a potentially reportable '*'iciency at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station.
The deficiency concerned loose wire terminations on Potter and Brumfield AMF type relays in the Main Steam Isolation Valve Leakage Control System Panels.
It was also noted that term-inal lugs had not been used on the wires that were loose.
b.
On December 5, 1980 cersonnel of the ""* ice of Inspection and Enforcement, Region III, notified personnel of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region IV, of two concerns.
The concerns related to:
(1) use of improper lugs for terminating electrical wires and (2) General Electric's review of Field Deviation Disposition Requests for generic implication.
2.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
(1) adequate corrective actions and preventive measures had been taken or planned regarding loose electrical wires on Potter and Brumfield AMF type relays and (2) implemented controls of lug use on electrical wires was continuing.
3.
Methods of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Reviewing the following General Electric Ccmpany Control and Instrumentation Department's letters to verify corrective action had been addressed; dated:
(1) December 2, 1980; To:
D. C. Brown; From:
L. Harshbarger;
Subject:
Loose Wires in Relay Terminations; (2) December 3, 1980; To:
L. Cabler and J. Morrissey; From:
J. Tablewski;
Subject:
Wire Termination, (3) November 19, 1980; To:
- 3. F. Fleischman; From:
D. C. Brown;
Subject:
Loose Wire in Termination and h
8 k'
24 (4) March 3, 1981; To:
C. E. McGee; From:
C C Brown;
Subject:
Potter-Brumfield Relay Terminatious.
b.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that corrective action had been taken:
(1) Manufacturing Standard Practices, Nos.:
(a) 14.039, Revision No. O, dated January 27, 1981, entitled -
Wire Termination for Potter and Brumfield Relays, (b) 11.011, Revision No. 3, dated October 24, 1980, entitled -
Verifi ation of Crimping, (c) 14.003, Revision No. 4, dated November 12, 1980, entitled -
Wire Termination, (d) 14.031, Revision No. 12, dated January 20, 1981, entitled -
Terminal Lug Application, (e) 19.002, Revision No. 6, dated September 1, 1978, entitled -
Operating Instructions for A-MP Crimp Tool 59250, and (f) 19.003, Revision No. 3, dated October 2,1978, entitled -
Operating Instructions for the H-20 Hand Operating Crimping Tool.
(2) Field Deviation Disposition Request No. JB1-1147, Issue Date, January 30, 1981, entitled - Connection Diagram, Potter and Brumfield AMF Type Relays, and (3)
Inspection Instruction, No. PA-002, Revision No. 10, dated Septemoer 13, 1979, entitled - Panel Product - Inprocess Inspection.
c.
Observing wire terminations at Potter and Brumfield AMF type relays in a non-domestic Main Steam Isolation Valve Leakage Control System Vertical Board to determine the method of terminating wires.
d.
Observing wire terminal lug storage in the panel shop to verify that controls were in place.
e.
Reviewing Engineering Operating Procedure No. 55-3.00, dated February 11, 1981, entitled - Field Deviation Dispositions, to verify that a program was in place for review of Field Deviation Disposition Requests.
l l
4 Findings L
a.
Comments 3
t l
~
25 (1) No nonconformances or unresolved items were identified during this area of the inspectinn.
(2) The Potter and Brumfied relays are mounted in terminal sockets which use clamps for wire termination.
An investigation of i
shop practices during manufacturing of the panels, revealed that lugs were of ten used for terminating the wires.
In order to standardize the practice, Manufacturing Standard Practice (MSP) No. 14.039 was initiatad; the MSP requires usage of the clamps without lugs.
(3) Crimping activities (lugs selection, crimp tool calibration, operator certification, tensile strength tests, etc.) continue to be controlled.
(4) Problems identified in Field Deviation Disposition Requests are assessed for generic implication.
D.
Manufacturing Process Control 1.
Otiectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that manufacture of the Power Generation Control Complex (PGCC) cables were being accomplished in a controlled manner.
2.
Methods of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Observing shield preparation on Cable, Orawing No. 204B7533AAG009, in accordance with Section 6, Revision 10, dated February 13, 1981, of the PGCC Assembly Instruction Manual.
b.
Observing multi-conductor lug / pin installation on Cable, Orawing No. 20487533AAG011, in accordance with Section 7, Revision 12, dated February 13, 1981, of the PGCC Assembly Instruction Manual.
c.
Reviewing Records of Crimping Tests, dated March 9, 1981.
l 3.
Findings No nonconformances or unresolved items were identified during this area of the inspection.
E.
Implementation of 10 CFR Part 21 1.
Objectives h
l y
,m---
-,y-p, v
26 The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that suppliers of safety-related equipment had established and implemented procedures in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that procedures had been adopted:
(1) Nuclear Energy Division Procedure No. 70-42, Revision No. 3, r
dated May 1, 1980, entitled - Reporting of Defects and Non-compliance Under 10 CFR Part 21 or Part 50.55(e), and (2) Manufacturing Procedure No. 5.10, dated January 30, 1981, entitled - Controlling Production Procurement Documents.
b.
Observing the following activities to verify that the adopted procedures had been implemented:
(1) Posting at Buildings A, B, C, and L; and the Power Generation Control Complex facility, (2) Processing of outgoing Purchase Order No. 282-TG395, Revision No. 1, dated March 9, 1981, and (3) Reviewing Employee, Bulletins dated January 29, 1980, and January 7, 1981.
3.
Findings No nonconformances or unresolved items were identified during this area of the inspection.
'W i
(
L i
~ - -
o
- _ _.