ML20214K464
| ML20214K464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/14/1986 |
| From: | Merschoff E, Trottier E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214K457 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99901026 99901026-86-01, 99901026-86-1, NUDOCS 8608210106 | |
| Download: ML20214K464 (3) | |
Text
.
i ORGANIZATION: MICR0 INSTRUMENT CORPORATION ROCHESTER, NEW YORK REPORT INSPECTION INSPECTION NO.: 99901026/86-01 DATES: 01/26-27/86
)N-SITE HOURS: 20 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Micro Instrument Corporation 1199 Emerson Street Rochester, New York 14606 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. Gary Battaglia TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(715) 458-3150 l
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: One custom built control unit for the Robert E.
Ginna Nuclear Station auxiliary building crane (subject of this inspection).
A hRM ASSIGNED INSPECTOR:
..E. H. Trottier, Reactive Inspection Section (RIS)
Date I
OTHER INSPECTOR (S): D.Huszagh, Brookha anal Laboratory APPROVED BY:
N
N Date Ellis W. Merschoff, Chgf, RIS, Vendor Program Branch INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:
1 A.
BASES:
10 CFR Part 21 notification received from Rochestor Gas and Elec-tricCorporation(licensee)onAugust 23, 1985.
B.
SCOPE: This inspection was performed in response to the 10 CFR Part 21 notification received from Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation on August 23, 1985. This Part 21 notification concerned the backup hydraulic brake control system for the 30-ton auxiliary building crane.
PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY:
Robert E. Ginna Nuclear Station (50-244).
8609210106 860811 PDR QA999 cf1Vrf l NG T 99901026 PDR
ORGANIZATION: MICR0 INSTRUMENT CORPORATI0h ROCHESTER, NEW YORK REPORT INSPECTION NO.-
99901026/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 2 of 3 A.
VIOLATIONS:
There were no violations identified as a result of thJs inspection.
B.
NONCONFORMANCES:
There were no nonconformances identified as a result of this inspection.
C.
UNRESOLVED ITEM:
There were no items lef t unresolved as a result of this inspection.
D.
STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:
This vendor has not previously been audited by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
E.
OTHER FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
As part of their program to upgrade the main hoist on the auxiliary build-ing crane, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E) retained C. F.
Simmers (consultant) to perform the design of the upgrade, as well as field supervision of its installation and test. Using plant procurement documents, the consultant attempted to contact the designer of the current brake system, National Machine Company. When National Machine Company was found to be out of business, a local supplier of custom built control systems - Micro Instrument Corporation - was retained.
Using a very rough design proposal submitted two years earlier by the now defunct National Machine Company, Micro Instrument Corporation undertook to supply the backup hydraulic brake system for the auxiliary building crane. When the unit was delivered, installed and tested on the crane, it n.alfunctioned.
In reconstructing the circumstances surrounding this event, the inspector learned the following:
RG8E claims that Micro Instruments Corporation received an incorrect Skinner hydraulic valve from their vendor, CPI Controls. This was not identified by Micro Instrument Corporation during receipt inspection and was installed in the backup hydraulic brake control system.
In addi-tion, three Ashcrof t pressure switches failed during initial energiza-
4 4
ORGANIZATION: MICR0 INSTRUMENT CORPORATION ROCHESTER, NEW YORK REPORT INSPECTION NO.-
99901026/86-01 RESULTS:
PAGE 3 of 3 tion of the unit upon installation at Ginna Station. These pressure switches were replaced under warranty by CPI Controls due to an (apparently) incorrect pressure rating for the switch, seal material.
Micro Instrument Corporation claims that neither the pressure switch seal material, nor the incorrect (or changed) part number for the Skinner valve was the problem with the backup brake system supplied. The Senior Controls Engineer for Micro Instrument Corporation has establi-shed by letter of verification that the hydraulic pump unit successfully completed a factory acceptance test prior to shipment.
Further, it was noted that when Micro Instrument Cdrporation representatives arrived at Ginna Station to troubleshoot the initial failure of the backup brake system, Ginna installation and test personnel had no knowledge of the system setup procedure provided with the unit.
The inspector examined the set-up procedure and found it to contain three pages of instructions to be followed prior to operation (system setup),
one page of instructions for system preparation and pressurization, a page of system operating instructions and a parts list.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it appears that the initial failure of the unit was caused by overpressurization due to failure to follow (or prepare, review and approve) the Micro Instruments Corporation procedure.
The system is reportedly operating satisfactorily.
.