ML20049H121
| ML20049H121 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/14/1981 |
| From: | Brown R, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031C972 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900057 NUDOCS 8110090184 | |
| Download: ML20049H121 (5) | |
Text
-
1 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900057/81-01 Program No.
51300 Company:
The William oowell Company Plant No. 2 3233 Colerian Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio Inspection Conducted:
May 4-8, 1981
'/
Inspector:
Ross L. Brown, Contractor Inspector Date Components Section, Vendor Inspection Branch Approved:
(faff f////g/
D. E. Whitesell, Chief Date Components Section Vendor Inspection Branch i
Summary Inspection on May 4-8, 1981 (99900057/81-01).
Areas Inspected: Followup of deficiency reported in 10 CFR Part 21 report, dated November 12, 1979, and implementation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B including control of quality assurance records. The inspection involved 40 inspector hours on site by one NRC inspector.
t Results:
No nonconformances or unresolved items were identified.
^
[t (301 ()I f
,_.E,-
.n
DETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted
- H.
Knock, QA Manager, Plant No. 2
- J. F. Loftus, Corporate Chief Engineer
- J. C. Williams, Project QA Engineer
- E. E. Winterfeldt, Corporate Manager of Quality Assurance
- Denotes attended Exit Meeting B.
Vendors Nuclear Industry Involvement The William Powell Company (WPC) has 15 contracts for ASME, Class 1, 2, and 3 valves scheduled for completion by mid year 1982. They also have 2 con-tracts for ASME, Class 3 valves scheduled for completion between 1983 and 1991.
C.
Follow up of the 10 CFR Part 21 Reported Deficiency 1.
Objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify:
a.
That the valve contracts that specified seismic requirements have been re-evaluated using the latest computer program.
b.
That the corrective action has been evaluated to determine its adequacy and proposed modifications have been submitted to the client for review and approval.
c.
That the repair / rework method (s) and procedures have included the QA participation.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by a review of the status reports submitted to the NRC and discussions with cognizant personnel.
3.
Findings a.
No nonconformances or unresolved items were identified. The inspector obtained the following information:
(1) Mississippi Power and Light Company, Grand Gulf Units 1 and 2 (a) The cuscomer nas accepted the valve modifications and/or auxiliary supports as recommended by WPC.
(b) Unit 1.
The repair / rework has been completed. The majority of the work was performed at the construction site by the erectors personnel, however, WPC management personnel was in
r
. attendance at all times in an adivsory capacity (c) Unit 2.
The required repair / rework has not been started, because WPC and their customer cannot agree who is respon-sible for the expense of the corrective actions.
(d) WPC has completed the operability testing of the 14 valves at the new specified g loads. All valves were accepted at the new loads of 6 g's horizontal and 5 g's vertical instead of the original requirements of 3 g's in two directions.
(2) Fermi Unit 2 (Detroit Edison Company)
WPC management stated that all seismic calculations have been submitted to Detroit Edison Company for their information.
WPC has not received any response relative to this infonnation.
They may not receive a response because, as the inspector stated in Inspection Report No. 99900057/80-02, that the Purchase Order IE-86734 equipment specification did not require cal-culations for the valve natural frequency.
(3) Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Zimmer (CG&E)
For all valves the seismic analysis have been completed and the reports submitted to the customer for their review and acceptance.
Most of the valves did not meet the revised requirements of 100 cps and several valves were below the original specified 33 cps.
The customer has not advised WPC of the disposition of these valves.
b.
10 CFR Part 21 Status Report WPC management stated that an interim report will be issued within 30 days to the NRC covering the current activities.
c.
Potential 10 CFR Part 21 Deficiency WPC performed a stress analysis of 64 valves for the Grand Gulf and Zimmer facilities using the new 6 g load, requirements. These calculations identified 2 types of 3. inch valves for the Zimmer site that exceeded the assigned stresses. WPC stated it is their opinion that the deficiency is the result of the additional loading and not the program, because these valves were in conformance with the stress requirements using the original 3 g loadings.
WPC management stated that CG&E has been contacted by telephone stating the problem'and requesting their evaluation of the situation relative to the issuance of a 10 CFR Part 21 Report. WPC management stated that a written report containing all the details will be submitted to CG&E with a copy to Sargent & Lundy, by May 12, 1981, for their evaluation and disposition.
. WPC management also stated that, they will review the WPC valves
. supplied to other nuclear sites to determine if a similar situation exists.
D.
QA Records 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were determined that pro-cedures have been prepared, approved, and are being implemented for the collecting, filing, storing, maintaining, and dispositioning of QA records in conformances with the established quality program.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by a review of the following documents and discussion with cognizant personnel, a.
WPC Quality Assurance Manual PS-114.1, Change Notice No. 7, dated February 2,1981 (QAM), Article 3, paragraph 3.3.1.2, " Quality Assurance and Documentation" to verify that the program defines a method for QA record control.
b.
QA files for shop order 1035-C,1118-C, and 896-C to verify conformance with described program.
3.
Findings a.
No nonconformances or unresolved items were identified in this area of the inspection.
b.
The inspector verified the following:
(1) The QAM defines the documentation controls as required by code for lifet!me and nonpermanent records for Class 1, 2 and 3 valves.
The manual also assigns the responsibilities for the control activities including assigning the responsibility to the owner for the retention of the lifetime records.
(2) The QA files includeo a copy of the documentation submitted to the customer with each valve shipment and WPC retained back-up records.
(a) The customer records in the files were as follows:
(1) Documentation. Check List and Index (2) Customer documentation requirements l
l
E d
i (3) Manufacture Data Report (4) WPC-Certificate of Conformance (5) NDE Reports (6) Performance Test Reports (7) Motor Operator Test results (8) Critical Dimension Record (9) Certified Material Test Reports b.
The back-up records includes: The shop routers, trouble analysis reports and quality deficiency travelers.
E.
Exit Interview The inspector conducted an exit meeting with The William Powell. Company manage-ment representatives at the conclusion of the inspection. Those persons indi-cated by an asterisk (*) in paragraph A above were in attendance.
The inspector discussed the scope of the inspection and stated that in the areas inspected no deviations from coninitment or unresolved-items were iden-tified.
The potential Part 21 deficiency was discussed. The WPC management conrnents were mostly for clarification.