ML20210H989
| ML20210H989 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/23/1986 |
| From: | Lasky R, Potapovs U NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210H968 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900113 NUDOCS 8609260383 | |
| Download: ML20210H989 (5) | |
Text
.. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
l I
ORGANIZATION: ITT BARTON CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA INSPECTION INSPECTION REPORT l DATES: 7/7-11/86 ON-SITE HOURS: 44 NO.: 99900113/86-01 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: ITT Barton ATTN: Mr. Gerald R. Welt Director, Quality Assurance 900 South Turnbull Canyon Road City of Industry, California 91749 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Ms. Jean Dwyer TELEPHONE NUMBER: (818) 961-2547 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: 8 to 10%.
ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: a F/*(IA6 R. H. Lasky, Equipfnent (ualification Inspection Date Section (EQIS)
OTHER INSPECTOR (S): M. Jacobus, Sandia National Laboratories i
APPROVED BY: lI> WW T- 2%-tb Date U. Potapovs, Chief, EQIS, \hndor Program Branch INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
A. BASES: Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 21.
B. SCOPE: This inspection consisted of: (1) a technical evaluation of Equipment Qualification (EQ) activitics for safety related equipment and (2) verification of implementation of the quality assurance program.
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: Plants with ITT Barton differential pressure and pressure electronic transmitters and indicating switches.
8609260383 860924 PDR GA999 EMVITTB 99900113 PDR r
. 6 ORGANIZATION: ITT BARTON CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900113/86-01 RESULTS: PAGE 2 of 5 A. VIOLATIONS:
None.
B. NONCONFORMANCES:
I None.
C. UNRESOLVED ITEMS:
None.
D. OTHER FINDIt<GS OR COMMENTS:
- 1. The inspection team examined ITT Barton's Quality Assurance (QA) manual for compliance to Section VII of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, control of purchased material, equipment, and services. The inspec- l tion team then examinec selected documents to inspect ITT Barton's {
compliance to their QA manual. Documents examined were the ITT Barton i audit reports of the Nuclear Research Center at Georgia Tech, the l Southwest Research Institute and the Westinghouse-Nuclear Technology Division. In the QA manual and audit reports examined, no nonconform-ances or deficiencies were found.
- 2. The inspection team examined ITT Barton's QA manual for compliance to Section XVIII of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, Audits. The inspection team then examined selected ITT Barton internal audits to their CA manual. The internal audits examined were receiving inspection, order administration, records, calibration control and program audit. In the QA manual and internal audits examined, no nonconformances or I deficiencies were found.
- 3. Four test programs relating to the Environn> ental Qualification (EQ) of ITT Barton equipment were examined. These programs were examined for the following:
- a. Required test instrumentation with accuracies described, ret the requirements of IEEE-STD-323/1974.
- b. Equipment interfaces were addressed.
- c. Test acceptance criteria was established as described in the test specifications or in the design engineering letters to meet the requirements of IEEE-STD-323/1974.
ORGANIZATION: ITT BARTON CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION RESULTS: PAGE 3 of 5 h0.: 99900113/86-01
- d. The same equipment was used for all phases for testing and represented a standard production item.
- e. Environmental conditions were described (e.g., pressure and temperature profiles, and thermal aging factors consistent with those outlined in the test specifications or test plan).
- f. The test results were adequately reduced and evaluated against acceptance criteria described in the test specificat. ions or purchase orders.
9 All prerequisites fcr the given test as outlined in the test specifications were met.
- h. The test equipment included a description of all materials, parts, and subcomponents.
- i. Notice of anomaly reports properly documented condition and reports were properly dispositioned.
- j. Appropriate margins were applied as required by test specifications.
- 1. Differential Pressure, Model 6001 and Pressure, Model 6005 transmitters.
Related EQ test docurrents (purchase orders, procedures, audits and fin 61 test reports) were examined. No noncon-formances or deficiencies were found.
- 2. Differential pressure and pressure switches, Model 580 series.
The EQ test documents (purchase orders, procedures, audits and final test reports) that were used for the 1983 ITT Barton qualification of Model 580 series were examined.
No nonconformances er deficiencies were found.
ITT Barton has recently cenpleted additional EQ testing of these switches. During this testing three (3) of the instruments malfunctioned. A 10 CFR Part 21 notification dated April 14, 1986 was written stating that the malfunc-tions were generic in nature and that malfunctions were due l
l l
l
. i ORGAhlZATION: ITT BARTON CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION RESULTS: PAGE 4 of 5 N0.: 99900113/86-01 to the failures of Honeywell snap-acting switches which are a part of these instruments. ITT Barton revised the 10 CFR Part 21 notification on April 16, 1986 stating that deflec-tion of the instrument case may have caused the instrument malfunction by affecting the position of the switch actuating mechanism, which caused the switch set point to be shifted.
The inspection team examined the test data from this recent EQ testing of the Model 580 series instruments and also discussed the test results with ITT Barton. It was con-cluded that the most probable cause of Model 580 series malfunction was the deflection of the instrument case although ITT Barton has nct ruled out the Honeywell switches as contributing to the instrument malfunctions.
ITT Barton plans to retest the Model 580 series instruments upon the completion of redesign of the instrument case.
- 3. Models 763 and 764, Electronic Transmitters.
Test reports, purchase orders, audits and procedures related tc EQ testing of these transmitters were examined by the inspection team.
The inspection team questioned the disposition of one of the Notices of Anomaly. The anomaly was concerned with the erratic behavior of some of the transmitters during the LOCA. The concern was identified in the review of the model 764 transmitter test report. During the testing, several anomalies were experienced with the transmitters, which were attributed to moisture and/or chemical spray permeating into the lead wire gland assembly and causing leakage currents between the two (2) leads. The leakage currents affected the accuracy of the transmitters output signals. ITT Barton dispositioned these anomalies as test methodology based on the observation of water flowing out of the wires outside the test chamber, and the fact that instrument leads would not be exposed to a differential pressure during actual plant installation. The test setup had transmitter leads penetrating the test chamber creating
.. 4 ORGANIZATION: ITT BARTON CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA REPORT INSPECTION RESULTS: PAGE 5 of 5 NO.: 99900113/86-01 a differential pressure across the leads (LOCA pressure inside chamber and ambient outside of chamber). The inspection team was not provided adequate justification for ITT Barton's disposition of the anomalies as test methodology.
ITT Barton, after the inspection, provided additional test data to resclve this concern and justify the test methodology disposition of the anomalies. Additional tests performed by ITT Barton removed sections of the lead wires insulation between the transmitter and where the lead wires exited the test chamber. The test chamber was then pressurized and no leakage currents were observed. This test substantiated ITT Barton's position that the test anomalies were due to test methodology.
With the exception of the concern on the test anomalies disposition, the inspection team found no nonconformances or deficiencies related to documentation of EQ of ITT Barton, models 763 and 764, transmitters.
- 4. ITT Barton Models 352 and 353, Level Measuring Sensors.
The inspection team examined documents related to the EQ testing of the Level Measuring Sensors. Test reports, purchase orders and procedures were examined. No noncon-formances or deficiencies were found.
i l