ML20031D100
| ML20031D100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/24/1981 |
| From: | Barnes I, Foster W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031D036 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900743 NUDOCS 8110090279 | |
| Download: ML20031D100 (8) | |
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report ilo. 99900743/81-01 Program No. 51400 Company:
Brown Boveri Electric, Incorporated Distribution Apparatus Division 207 Witmer Road Horsham, Pennsylvania 19044 Inspection Conducted:
February 4-5, 1981 Inspector:
W
.2 - h - r a g?-W. E. Foster, Centractor Inspector Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Approved by: I 8-m
- - h - S' i I. Barnes, Chief Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Intpection Branch Summary:
Inspection conducted on February 4-5, 1981 (99900743/81-01).
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B criteria, and applicable codes and standards; ircluding follow-up on regional requests organi-zation; and implemeritation of 10 CFR Part 21.
The inspection involved eleven and one-half hours on site.
Results:
In the three areas inspected, no violations were identified; the following nonconformance and unresolved items were identified:
Nonconformance:
Organization practices were not consistent with Criteria I of Aopendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, and paragraph 1.2 of Section 1 of the Protective Relay Operation QA Mantal, dated May 3, 1978 (See Notice of Nonconformance).
Unresolved Item:
Follow-up on Regional Requests - it was not apparent that the icentification of a purchased part was verified (See Details Section, paragrapn B.J.c).
8110090279 810714 PDR GA999 ENVBSC 99900743 PDR
l DETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted R. Conrad, Manager - Quality Assurance D. Dalasta, Director E. W. Rhoads, Manager - Quality Assurance (Switchgear Systems Division)
All of the above attended the Exit Interview.
B.
Follow-up on Regional Requests
===1.
Background===
a.
The Mississippi Power and Light Company had notified the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region II, on March 3, 1979, of a deficient condition at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2.
The deficiency concerned improper operation of the solid state trip devices located in the 480 volt Load Centers.
Investigation revealed that the cause of the problem was incorrect soldering during assembly of printed circuit boards.
b.
The South Carolina Electric and Gas Company had notified the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region II, on April 30, 1980, of a deficient condition at V. C. Summer Nuclear Station.
The deficiency concerned an incorrect current transformer installed in a 480 volt circuit breaker.
c.
Duke Power Company had notified the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region II, on January 31, 1980, of a deficient condition at the McGuire Nuclear Station.
The deficiency con-cerned failure of a silicon controlled rectifier in overcurrent relays, Types 51L and 51Y.
2.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that the manufacturer had:
(1) taken adequate corrective actions and preventive measures, and (2) assessed generic implications.
3.
Methods of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Reviewing the follow ng documents to verify that:
(1) a program i
existed for corrective actions and preventive measures, (2) generic implications had been assessed, and (3) the orogram had been implemented:
3 (1)
Quality Assurance Procedures, Nos. -
(a) 9.2H-3.4.2, Revision 0 Soldering Procedures,, dated March 15, 1979 - Hand (b) 9.2H, Revi Processes,sion 0, dated January 5,1979 - Controlled (c) 9.2.1H, Revision 1, dated March 13, 1980 - Wave Soldering Procedure, (d)
Soldering,9.2.2H, Revision 0, dated January 4, 1980 - Hand (e) 10.9.2H, Revision 0, dated March 27, 1980 - Sub assembly Inspection, (f) 10.9.1H, Revision 0, dated March Inspection, 27, 1980 - Wave Solder (g)
Inspection,10.9H, Revision 0, dated January 2,1979 - In-Pro (h) 14.2H, Revision 1, dated March 20, 1980 - Certification Procedure, and (i) 7.1H, Revision 0, dated March 19, 1980 - Receiving Inspection.
(2)
April 18, 1979.K-Line Assembly Verification Test, unnumbered
, dated (3) Reviewir., data of inspections conducted at Susquehanna an San Onofre, and (4)
Reviewing Pur:hased Part Drawing No.605211 b.
Observing assembling, testing, and i.ispecting activities t implementation of corrective actions and preventi o verify ve measures.
Observing the returned Phase Sensor, c.
K1 and Phase Sensors, Part Nos.
identified as Part No.
609300-th9 part had been incorrectly identified 609300-K1 and K2 to verif y that d.
Observing a demonstr& tion of the pnase sensor test during R Inspection to verify that the parts had been inspected upon eceiving receipt.
^
(1) Quality Assurance Procedures, Nos. -
(a) 9.2H-3.4.2, Revision 0, dated March 15, 1979 - Hand Soldering Procedures, (b) 9.2H, Revision 0, dated January 5, 1979 - Controlled Processes,-
(c) 9.2.1H, Revision 1, datea March 13, 1980 - Wave Soldering Procedure, (d) 9.2.2H, Revision 0, dated January 4, 1980 - Hand Soldering, (e) 10.9.2H, Revision 0, dated March 27, 1980 - Sub assembly Inspection, (f) 10.9.1H, Revision 0, dated March 27, 1980 - Wave Solder Inspection, (g) 10.9H, Revision 0, dated January 2, 1979 - In-Process Inspection, (h) 14.2H, Revision 1, dated March 20, 1980 - Certification Procedure, and (i) 7.1H, Revision 0, dated March 19, 1980 - Receiving Inspection.
(2) K-Line Assembly Verificat;]n Test, unnumbered, dated April 18, 1979.
(3) Reviewing data of inspections conducted at Susquehanna and San Onofre, and (4) Reviewing Purchased Part Drawing No. 605211.
b.
Observing assembling, testing, and inspecting activities to verify implementation of corrective actions and preventive measures, c.
Observing the returned Phase Sensor, identified as Part No. 609300-K1 and Phase Sensors, Part Nos. 609300-K1 and K2 to verify that the part had been incorrectly identified.
d.
Observing a demonstration of the phase sensor test during Receiving Inspection to verify that the parts had been inspected upon receipt.
p 4
e.
Reviewing Incoming Material Inspection Records for the Phase Sensor, Part No. 609300-K2 to determine the characteristics observed during Receiving Inspection.
4.
Findings a.
Comments (1) The Solid State Trip devices with the improperly soldered printed circuit boards had been corrected and returned to service.
It had been the practice, during assembly, to leave certain leads unsoldered to facilitate testing.
The current practice is to solder the leads and conduct tests using clip-ons.
Wave soldering is used on printed circuit boards, to the extent possible.
The inspector was informed that the inspection of soldered leads had been re-enforced with the superviso".
Trip devices at the manufacturer and those, of the affected serial number block, at Susquehanna and San Onofre were inspected; no deficiencies were noted.
g (2) The misidentified phase sensor (incorrect current tre:Jsds/mer) had been replaced by a correctly identified one.
The pnase sensor is purchased by the Distribution Apparatus Division.
It was not apparent to the NRC inspector that mea.eures had been established to preclude processing an incorrectly identified part.
(3) Defective silicon control rectifiers had been replaced in the affected hardware.
A screening test of 14 days duration in an environment of 150 C had been added to the purchased part drawing.
b.
Nonconformances None.
c.
Unresolved Item Paragraph 3.2 of Quality Assurance Procedure No. 7.1H, Revision 0, dated March 19, 1980 states, " Inspection shall inspect the material using the sample levels snown on tne inspection reccrd card for the characteristics to be inspected and tested."
The Inspection Record Card for the Phase Sensor, Part No. 609300-K2 did not include identification as one of the characteristics.
The NRC inspectar was informed that identification would have been checked under paragraph 3.3 of the CAP No. '.1H wnich states.
1
~
~
j 5
"The inspection shall be controlled by applicable drawings or specifications."
It was not apparent to the NRC inspector that measures had been established to preclude processing an incorrectly identified part.
C.
Organization i,
1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions:
(1) had sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; (2) to initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and verify implementation of solutions, and (3) had organizational freedom and sufficient independence from cost and schedule when opposed to safety considerations.
2.
Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
Reviewing the following documents to verify that persons and a.
organizations performing quality assurance tanctions had suffi-cient:
(1) authority; (2) organizational freedom; and (3) indepen-dence from cost and schedule to:
(1) identify quality problems; (2) initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and (3) verify implementation of solutions:
(1) Protective Relay Operation Quality Assurance Manual, dated May 2, 1978, and (2) Quality Assurance Procedures, Nos. -
(a) 1.1H, Revision 0, dated January 4,1980 - Organization Chart, Horsham Operation, and (b) 14.2H, Revision 1, dated March 20, 1980 - Certification Procedure.
3.
Findinos a.
Nonconformance See Notice of Nonconformance.
1 The Horsham Operation Organization Chart, dated January 4,1980, indicates that no persons report directly to the Quality Assurance Manager.
The chart shows that the Test Supervisor and Incoming
i 6
l Inspector report directly to the Manufacturing Manager and Lead Production Supervisor, respectively, and indirectly (broken line) to the Quality Assurance Manager.
The Introduction to the Protective Relay Operation Quality Assurance Manual, dated May 3, 1978, states in part, "This manual has been established to describe and demonstrate how the Quality Assurance Program, currently in effect at the... Protective Relay Opera-tion complies with the applicable requirements of NRC Regulation 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, ANSI Standard N45, (sic) 2-1977."
- Further, the Certificate of Conformance supplied with safety related equipment, states in part, "The quality assurance program in effect at this location complies with the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, (NRC)... ANSI N45.2 - 1971."
The NRC inspector was informed that the individuals responsible for inspecting and testing hardware, report directly (hardline, via intermediate levels) to the Manufacturing Manager and indirectly (broken line) to the Quality Assurance Manager.
- Further, it was stated that:
(1) inspectors are used in production opera-tions when the workload of items to be inspected lessens; (2) the product audit inspector (performs on items awaiting shipment) reports directly to the QA Manager while engaged in product audit; and (3) nonconforming conditions (Inspection Reports) are reported directly to the QA Manager.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
D.
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 implemented procedures in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21.
2.
Methods of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Reviewing the following customer orders to verify that the equipment was safety related and 10 CFR Part 21 had been invoked:
Gould - Brown Boveri, Switchgear Division - Chalfont Operations, Purchase Order Nos. -
(a) J-59598-54653, dated Novemoer 17, 1980, and
i 7
(b) J-99308-52260, dated October 16, 1979.
b.
Reviewing the following documents to verify that procedures'had been established in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21:
(1) Protective Relay Operation Quality Assurance Manual, dcced May 3,1978, Section 3.15-Nonconforming Msterial, and (2) Switchgear System Division Quality Assurance Procedure No.
15.2, Revision 2, dated February 19, 1980 - Reporting of Product Defects.
c.
Observing a Bulletin Board in the production area to verify that posting had been accomplished in accordance with 10 CFR Part 21.
3.
Findings a.
Comments (1, The aforementioned purchase orders identified the equipment as safety related and invoked 10 CFR Part 21.
(2) During this area of the inspection, no violations, noncon-formances or unresolved items were identified.
E.
Exit Interview 1.
The inspector met with management representatives denoted in paragraph A. at the conclusion of the inspection on February 5, 1981.
2.
The following subjects were discussed:
a.
Areas inspected.
b.
Nonconformance identified.
c.
Unresolved Item identified.
d.
Contractor response to the report.
The contractor was requested to structure his response under headings of corrective action, preventive measures, and dates for the noncon-formance.
Additionally, management representatives were requested to notify the Commission in writing if dates require adjustment, commitments require modification, etc.
8 3.
Management representatives acknowledged the remarks made by the inspector.
1