ML20009G636
| ML20009G636 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/23/1981 |
| From: | Barnes I, Foster W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009G618 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900300 NUDOCS 8108040499 | |
| Download: ML20009G636 (13) | |
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900300/81-01 Program No. 51300/51400 Company:
Colt Industries Fairbanks Morse Engine Division 701 Lawton Avenue Beloit, Wisconsin 53511 Inspection Conducted: May 18-21, 1981 ck nb t./13/0 Inspector:;FW. E. Toster, Contractor Inspector t
Date' 7
Reactive Inspection Section Vendor Inspection Branch Approved b : c/[/d uh 422.5/h I. Barnes, Chief Dat6 Reactive Inspection Section Vendor Inspection Branch Summary:
Inspection conducted on May 18-21, 1981 (Report No. 99900300/81-01)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B criteria, and applicable codes and standards; including follow up on 10 CFR Part 21 reports; implementation of 10 CFR Part 21; follow up on deviations; follow up on unresolved items; control of measuring and test equipment; and audits.
The inspection involved 28 inspector-hours on site by one NRC inspector.
Results:
In the six areas inspected, the following vio'ation and three non-conformances were identified:
Violation:
Implementation of 10 CFR Part 21 - Practica was not consistent with Paragraph 21.6 of 10 CFR Part 21 (See Notice of Violation).
Nonconformances: Control of Measuring and Test Equipment - Practices were not consistent with: Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, Paragraphs 2.1, 3.8 and 4.5 of Standard Practice No. 400.10, dated April 1976 (See Notice of Nonconformance, Item A); Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Item C. of the Electrode Ovens Section of Quality Engineering Instruction 8108040499 810626 PDR GA999 EMVCOLTF 99900300 PDR
2 No. 005b, dated January 10, 1979 (See Notice of Nonconformance, Item B);
Criterion V c,i Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Paragraphs 7.1 through 7.4 of Manufacturing Engineering Standard No. 03:54:02, cated April 30, 1980 (See Notice of Nonconformance, Item C).
Unresolved Ite 3:
None 1
,,y p
3 DETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted J. Armstrong, Tool Pre-set F. Bass, Jr., Level II Radiographer
- R. A. Bowker, Engineer - Senior Quality Assurance (Nuclear)
- C. E. Evenson, Supervisor, Field Service
- E. L. Fay, Manager, Quality Assurance L. R. Fenne, Engineer, Quality Assurance
- R. Haisler, Manager, Quality Assurance
- H. R. Hartshorn, Engineer, Quality Assurance R. D. Holtz, Instrument Technician M. S. Horinka, Engineer, Quality Assurance (Nuclear)
R. Jones, Tool Pre-set
- J. M. Moriarty, Manager, Utility Sales J. L. Owens, Chief Inspector (Foundry)
- K. Robison, Vice President, Manufacturing D. Rowlett, Level II Radiographer
- W. A. Schlagenhaft, Manager, Quality Assurance Engineering (Nuclear)
R. Toubl, Supervisor, Tool Crib / Storage / Grinding
- Attended Exit Interview
- Beloit Power Systems Personnel.
B.
Follow Up On 10 CFR Part 21 Reports
===1.
Background===
a.
On September 22, 1980, personnel of Colt Industries - Fairbanks Morse Engine Division (FMED) filed a Part 21 Repor' "ith the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region III.
a report addressed insulation damage (potential short circu..) on a wire between the collector rings and field coils.
The damage existed at a clamp and had resulted in a failure of a generator in commercial service.
The report identified a number of plants (18) where suspect units are located.
As a result of a conference call, which included an NRC Duty Officer, Inspection and Enforcement Circular No. 80-23 was issued on October 31, 1980.
b.
The rocker arms pre-lubrication pumps of the two Colt-Pielstick, Type PC-2 Diesel Generator Sets installed at Summer Station, could operate continuously while the engine is shutdown.
Such operation could lead to a failure of the diesel generstor to start.
This less than desirable operation of the pump is con-trolled by an ca/ auto /off switch.
This was addressed in Vendor Inspection Report No. 80-02.
At that time, the cor-rective action proposed by FMED had not been accepted by the customer.
4 4
i 2.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
i (1) the report accurately described the problem and satisfied the reporting requirements; (2) the problem had been evaluated as i
required; (3) the generic implication had been assessed; and (4) i the stated corrective action is appropriate, adequate and imple-mented or planned.
t 3.
Methods of Accomplishment i
i The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
I' a.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that the objectives j
had been satisfied:
I (1) A memo dated October 28, 1980, relating to a telephone i
conversation between NRC-Headquarters and Fairbanks 1
Morse Engine Division personnel.
\\
t.
(2) Fairbanks Morse Engine Division letters, dated -
l (a) November 24, 1980, to Sargent and Lundy Engineers; e
Attention:
Mr. F. P. Tsai;
Subject:
Enrico Fermi i
Station Unit 2...
Reference:
NRC Circular No.
80-23... From:
G. W. Olson; j
(b) December 8, 1980, to Beloit Power Systems, Attention:
Mr. C. Evenson;
References:
(1) BPS EI-390, Rev. 1; (2) Part 21 Report Register No. 7782... From 1
M.S. Horinka, and
(
(c) March 18, 1981, to Bechtel Power Corporation, Attention:
Mr. J. R. Reiney, Jr;
Subject:
.... Limerick Generat-ing Station Units 1 and 2...
(3) Beloit Power Systems letter dated January 19, 1981, to Fair-banks Morse Engine Division, Attention: Mr. M. S. Horinka; Subjects:
(1) Certificate of Completion (2) Inspection Reports... and (3) Your letters... From:
S. Massey.
(4) Power Systems (Morrison-Knudsen Division) letter dateo December 3,1980, to Beloit Power Systems, Attention:
Mr. N. Theime;
Reference:
NRC IEC 80 10 CFR 21 Investigation.
(5) Power Systems (Morrison-Knudsen Division) letter dated December 17, 1980, to Beloit Power Systems, Attention:
Mr. G. Nordquist;
Reference:
NRC IE Circular 80 1 10 CFR 21 Investigation.
i l
l l
a 5
l (6) A memo dated November 14, 1980, relating tc a telephone conversation between personnel of Fairbanks Morse Engine Division and Beloit Power Systems.
(7) Inspection Reports, dated November 17, 1980, and an accompanying Certificate of Completion, dated November 19, 1980, relating to inspection of the diesel generators at the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station.
I b.
Interviewing Beloit Power Systems personnel to determine whether or not they had received any responses as a result of IE Circular No. 80-23.
c.
Reviewing Gilbert Associates, Inc. Telephone and Conference a
Memorandum dated October 29, 1980, which addresses a telephone call To:
R. W. Chranowski, Jr; With:
T. M. Stevenson,
Subject:
Diesel Generator Rocker Arm Prelube Pump.
4.
Findings a.
Conanents (1) Inspection of the diesel generators at the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station had been completed by Fairbanks Morse 1
Engine Division (FMED) personnel.
The inspection results had been submitted to Beloit Power Systems for evaluation.
Eight units were inspected with no evidence of damaged 4
insulation of the leads between the field coils and collector rings.
However, leads were touching the fan blades on two units.
Personnel of FMED provided the inspection results to personnel of Bechtel Power Corporation at Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
It is FMED's position that site personnel can position the leads to eliminate their touching the fan.
(2) Fairbanks Morse Engine Division (FMED) had received no inquiries regarding insulation damage while Beloit Power Systems had received two letters from one purchaser of a unit for nuclear power station application.
- Further, t
FMED was excluded from the notification cycle by IE Circular No. 80-23.
(3) Regarding the pre-lubrication pump switch, the customer proposes to use a timer rather than the spring loaded normally off switch proposed by Fairbanks Morse Engine Division (FMED).
The use of a timer is acceptable to FMED.
c-,rr-
~,,n
n-v
.-an---<,,-ra,...,--w,
-va---,v---,.
7-v -
.n
-,----n..,,.--.--,,,-_-n
,v.--,,---
6 b.
Nonconformances None c.
Unresolved Items l
None l
C.
Implementation of 10 CFR Part 21 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that suppliers of safety-related equipment had established and imple-mented procedures in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21.
2.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Reviewing Public Service Electric and Gas Company Purchase Order No. 10855-M-018 (Q) AC and attendant specification to verify that the equipment was safety-related and 10 CFR Part 21 had been invoked.
b.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that 10 CFR Part 21 had been implemented:
(1) Standard Practice No. 714.00 dated December 1977 - Procedure on Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance to NRC, (2) Quality Control Instruction No. 2005QC4-H, dated December 19, 1980 - Operating and Emergency Procedures For Radiography Personnel in Handling the Cobalt 60 Isotope, and (3) Terms and Conditions of Fairbanks Morse Engine Division Purchase Order Forms.
1 c.
Observing the following activities to verify that 10 CFR Part 21 had been implemented:
(1) Change Order No. 9, dated March 3, 1978, to Fairbanks Morse Engine Division's Purchase Order No. B-443000-0, and (2) Posting at the Medium and Large Engine Buildings, Foundry, Engineering Building and Quality Assurance Department.
4
_._.-,...e,---..,,.-,_m.c..,.-,.y.
_,..,..,,,,_,,.,,mm,..---r__-,,
r
._.,y
_v-
--,,w
,,r-,.m,--
_...x..
,.y,
,s.-
=-__
l 7
3.
Finding i
a.
Violation 1'
See Notice of Violation b.
Nonconformances None c.
Unresolved Items None D.
Follow up on Deviations 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that the vendor had taken the corrective actions and preventive measures stated in their correspondence to IE regarding items of deviations.
2.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
i Reviewing the following documents to verify that committed corrective actions and preventive measures had been taken:
(1) Manufacturing Engineering Standard No. 00:01:03, dated February 8, 1980 - Control of Manufacturing Engineering Standard Procedures Sthmitted for Customer Approval, and associated Review and Comment Form, (2)
Internal Audit Summary Forms (No. BF 4876) dated April 10, 24, 28; May 16, 28, 30; June 10, 17, 19, 25; July 23; and September 2, 1980; (3) Operation Sheet for Part No. P12602841, Serial No. 9060, Order No.
418740, Operation 0140 completion dates of February 26, 28, 1980.
(4) Record of Training Sessions ani Instructions, Form No. BF 5068, dated (a) February 26, 1980;
Subject:
Sign Off Operation Sheets, (b) February 27, 1980;
Subject:
Section 10.4.4.2, and (c) March 24, 1980, Subjects:
(1) Movement of Material Without Evidence of Inspection and (2) Failure to Notify Inspection When Operation Sheet Specifies Inspection as an Operation.
8 (5) Operation Sheet for Part No. P12609673, Order No. 418720, for annotation at Operation No. 00'.5 on February 28, 1980 and revised Master Operation Sheet.
(6) Fairbanks Morse Engine Division letter to:
Stone and Webster, Attention:
Mr. E. F. Heneberry;
Subject:
... Seismic Analysis of Battery Rack and transmitted Analysis, Revison 1 dated November 24, 1980.
(7) Inspection Report / Variation Request No. 849938, dated September 19, 1980, on Part Nos. 11908186 and 11908187.
(8) Drawing Nos. 11908186, Revision 9, and 11908187, Revision 12, both dated November 26, 1980.
(9) Supplier Deviation Disposition Request No. 463, Revision 1, dated October 2, 1980.
3.
Findings a.
(Closed) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 80-01):
The inspector verified that Manufacturing Engineering Standard (MES) No. 00:01:03 does not require issuance of a list of MES revisions and addenda applicable to the contract sales order number.
It was also verified that the specified audits had been conducted.
b.
(Closed) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 80-01): The inspector verified that Operation 0140 on the Operation Sheet, da*.ed May 24, 1979, for Part No. P12602841, Serial No. 9060 had been annotated at main bearing holes Nos. 1 and 2 by the operator and inspector on February 26 arid 28,1980, respectively.
Also, it was verified that :
(1) a training session for machine operators had been conducted and, (2) special reviews had been conducted.
c.
(Closed) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 80-01):
The inspector verified that:
(1) Operation No. 0015 of Operation Sheet, dated December 14, 1978, Part No. P12609673, Order No. 418720 had been annotated to reflect a postponed operation; (2) Operator's responsibility for charting had been transferred to Inspectior, at Operation No. 0071 of the Master Operation Sheet dated March 13, 1980; (3) Training sessions had been conducted; and (4) Special Audits had been conducted.
d.
(Closed) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 80-02):
The inspector verified that:
(1) The Seismic Analysis Report for North Anna battery racks had been revised and reflected signatures of the appropriate positions; (2) The Analysts and the Manager -
Analytical Department hac 5een apprised of the need to follow Standard Practice No. 350.60.
9 e.
(Closed) Deviation (Inspection Report No. 80-02): The inspector verified that:
(1) Inspection Report / Variation Request No.
B-49938 had been initiated and Supplier Deviation Disposition Request No. M71-35 (FMED No. 463) had been revised to indicate the actual welding procedure used; and (2) Drawing Nos. 11908186 and 11980187 had been revised.
E.
Follow up on Inspector Identified Unresolved Items 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that inspector identified unresolved items, during previous inspections, had been corrected and resolved satisfactorily.
2.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
Reviewing the following documents tc verify that the objectives had been satisfied:
(1) Manufacturing Engineering Standard No. 00:01:03, dated February 8, 1980 - Control of Manufacturing Engineering Standard Procedures Submitted for Customer Approval, and (2) Drawing Nos. P209751 and P209752, both are Revision 3, dated October 29, 1980.
3.
Findings a.
(Resolved) Unresolved Item (Inspectica Report No. 80-01):
The inspector verified that Manufacturing Engineering Standard (MES) No. 00:01:03, dated February 8, 1980, requires that addenda
" include the revision state of the MES procedure it is modifying."
b.
(Resolved) Unresolved Item (Inspection Report No. 80-01):
The inspector verified that MES No. 00:01:03 had replaced MES No.
00:01:02 and the requirement to post lists of contract numbers and applicable addenda had been deleted.
c.
(Resolved) Unresolved Item (Inspection Report No. 80-02):
The inspector verified that Drawing Nos. P209751 and P209752 had been revised to depict the rectangular oil grooves with appropriate engineering dimensions.
10 F.
Control of Measuring and Test Equipment 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that measures had been established and implemented to assure that tools, gages, instruments, and other measuring and testing devices used in activities affecting quality had been properly controlled, calibrated, and adjusted at specified periods to maintain accuracy within necessary limits.
2.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Reviewing the following dccuments to verify that measures had been established to assure that tools, gages, instruments, and other measuring and testing devices used in activities affecting quality had.;een controlled, calibrated, and adjusted at specified periods to maintain accuracy within necessary limits:
(1) Quality Assurance Manual, Section 12, Revision 0, dated April 1976 - Control of Measuring and Test Equipment, (2) Quality Assurance Manual - ASME, Section 12, Revision 1, dated November 27, 1979 - Control of Measuring and Test Equipment, (3) Standard Practice No. 400.10, dated April 1976 - Procedure and Control of Manufacturing Department Standard Measuring Devices and Employee Owned Tools, (4) Quality Control Instruction No. 2000QC4-D, dated January 30, 1980 - Calibration Program, (5) Quality Engineering Instruction No. 005b, dated January 10, 1979 - Calibration Instructions, and (6) Manufacturing Engineering Standard No. 03:54:02, dated April 30, 1980 - Procedure for the Calibration of Power Sources.
b.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that the established I
measures had been implemented:
(1) Computer Printout No. QC 010120, dated May 6, 1981 -
Gage Recall, (2) Computer Printout No. QC 010130, dated May 6, 1981 -
Gage Calibration History, and (3) Tool Charge Slips in Department 551 Tool Crib.
l
11 3
c.
Observing the following equipment to verify that the established l
measures had been implemented:
)
(1) Sentel Digital Readout Pyrometric Instrument, Serial No. (S/N) 2100-100, (2) Cylindrical Plug Gages, S/N - (a) 10008, 1.6245/1.6255; (b) i 10012, 1.5005/1.501; and (c) B233,.312/.313.
1' (3) Welders, Asset Nos. (a) 30030; (b) 31248; (c) 31019; (d) l 30012; and (e) 16714.
(4) Electrode Ovens, Asset Nos. (a) 31305; (b) 17700; (c) 31306; (d) 41493; (e) 17701; (f) 17739; and (g) 17738.
(5) Outside Diameter Micrometers, S/Ns (a) LZ-1; 18-19 inches; and (b) HZ7, 17-18 inches.
l 3.
Findings a.
Nonconformances (1) See Notice of Nonconformance, Item A.
a (2) See Notice of Nonconformance, Item B.
1 (3) See Notice of Nonconformance, Item C.
d b.
Unresolved Items None G.
Audits 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of toe inspection were to verify that procedures had been prepared, approved, and implemented for audit activities.
f 2.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accompi nhed by:
a.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that audit procedures l
provided for:
(1) identification and responsibilities of the auditing orgFization; (2) audit personnel training, qualifica-tion, and proficiency; (3) establishment of essential elements of the audit system; (4) planning, scheduling, preparing, per-forming and reporting; (5) follow up by both the audited and auditing organizations regarding corrective action; and (6) record retention:
i
......~,_-.-,,,----.-.--_-,-m.
_-_-~.-,,.--,.--..__,,-._..--,,.-._z,..-
12 (1) Quality Assurance Manual, Section 18, Revision 1, dated February 1981 - Audits, and (2) Quality Engineering Instructions, Nos.
(a) 002c, dated August 5, 1980 - Audit Personnel Quali-fication, and (b) 016b, dated December 3, 1980 - Supplier Survey / Audit
- Activity, b.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that the procedures had been implemented:
(1) Audit Schedule for 1979 through 1981, (2) Audit checklists, Internal Audit Summary forms, and Corrective Action Requests, dated January 12, 1981 to March 12, 1981, for audits conducted in Departments 205, 2.'.1, 212, and 219.
3.
Findings a.
Nonconformances None b.
Unresolved Items None H.
Exit Interview 1.
The inspector met with man lement representatives denoted in para-graph A. at the conclusior, r the inspection on May 21, 1980.
2.
The following subjects were discussed:
a.
Areas inspected.
b.
Violation identified.
c.
Nonconformances identified.
d.
Unresolved Items identified.
e.
Contractor response to the report.
f.
Reorganization of the Vendor Inspection Branch.
The contractor was requested to structure his response under head-ings of corrective action, preventive measures, and dates for each nonconformance, and the violation.
13 Additionally, management representatives were requested to notify the Commission in writing if dates require adjustment, coinmitments require modifications, etc.
3.
Management representatives requested clarification of some of the findings.
1
_...-.-n.-,
.,,-,.,n,
-_- _. _ _.,,_-,.,.-