ML20214K503

QA Insp Rept 99900105/86-01 on 861007-10.Violations Noted: Failure to Adopt Part 21 Notification Procedures & to Assure That Procurement Documents Specified Part 21 Applicability. Nonconformance Noted:Failure to Notify of Torque Derating

ML20214K503
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/21/1986
From:	Merschoff E, Yachimiak E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:
Shared Package
ML20214K461	List: ML20214K459 ML20214K463 ML20214K481 ML20214K503
References
REF-PT21-86, REF-QA-99900105 NUDOCS 8612020326
Download: ML20214K503 (8)

Text

--. . _ __-____ ______ ______ _____

ORGANIZATION: FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

MARSFALLT0WN, IOWA INSPECTION INSPECTION REPORT NO.: 99900105/86-01 DATE: 10/7-10/86 ON-SITE FOURS: 24 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Fisher Controls International, Inc.

ATTH: Mr. Gary Houser Plant Manager Post Office Box 190 Marshalltown, Iowa 50158 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. D. Rowley TELEPHONE NUMBER: (515) 754-3011 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Manufacturers of ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 valves and controllers and distribution of the associated spare parts.

I i ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: d#4l N E. Yachimiak, Reactive dnspection Section (RIS)

CL#ki it!Gl66

'Date OTHER INSPECTOR (S): T. Tinkel, Consultan APPROVED BY: .

[ -

//!z/ 6 Ellis W. Merschoff, 'Chie IS, Vendor Program Branch Date INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE:

A. BASES: Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, 10 CFR Part 21, and ANSI N45.2.

B. SCOPE: As a result of an interim 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) construction deficiency report from Vogtle electric generating plant concerning failed manual valve actuators, an inspection of the manufacturer, Fisher Controls International, Inc., was performed. The inspection mainly covered the Vogtle report and its similarity to a 10 CFR PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: Multiple: all nuclear power plants that use Fisher Podel 1073-1076 manual valve actuators.

8612O20326 861125 00foj99ENVF

ORGANIZATION: FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

MARSHALLT0WN, IOWA REPORT INSPECTION i NO.: 99900105/86-01 RESULTS: PAGE 2 of 6 i B. SCOPE (continued):

Part 21 report submitted by Fisher Controls International, Inc. (FCI) in February 1981. Additional areas reviewed were FCI's finished parts receiving inspection department and FCI's Part 21 procedures and implementation plan.

A. VIOLATIONS:

1. Contrary to Section 21.21, " Notification of failure to comply or existence of a defect," of 10 CFR Fart 21, FCI failed to adopt apprcpriate procedures to provide for (i) evaluating deviations or (ii) informing the customer (licensee) so that the deviations may be evaluated for parts, components, or products which are intended for nuclear use and are processed under the Standard Quality Assurance Manual (SQAM). (86-01-01)

2. Contrary to Section 21.31, " Procurement documents," of 10 CFR Part 21, FCI failed to assure that procurement documents for two (2) safety-related Limitorque motor operators specified that the provisions of 10 CFR Part 21 were applicable. (86-01-02)

B. NONCONFORMANCES:

1. Contrary to Criterion V, " Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings,"

of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, FCI failed to establish proce-dures and instructions for quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for finished parts receiving inspection activities.

(86-01-03)

2. Contrary to Criterion XV, " Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or Components," of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, FCI failed to notify customers that the output torque available from the size 2 cast iron gear segment for type 1073-1076 manual valve actuators was derated to 8,000 inch-pounds maximum torque.

(86-01-04)

C. UNRESOLVED ITEMS:

None.

E

ORGANIZATION: FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

MARSHALLT0WN, IOWA REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900105/86-01 RESULTS: PAGE 3 of 6 D. STATUS OF PREVIOUS INSPECTION FINDINGS:

1. (Closed) Nonconformance (81-01, Item A):

Contrary to Paragraphs 4.2.1.b and 4.2.1.d of FCI's ASME accepted Ouality Assurance Manual, FCI did not assure that two (2) open items were signed off in the Summary of R2 solution section of Form 3113 before Specification and Design Review Form 3119 was signed off by Technical Consultants for Project 78P174.

A review of these documents showed that Form 3113 was still unsigned.

Further investigation revealed, however, that Stone and Webster, Specification No. 2472.110-185, Addendum 1, contained the changes that the two open items of Form 3113 represented. Since the information in Addendum i shows that the two open items of Form 3110 were, in fact, closed, the FCI Panager for Planning and Control signed off Form 3113 in the presence of the NRC represen-tative.

2. (Closed) Nonconformance (81-01, Item B):

Contrary to Paragraph 2.2.12 of FCI's QAM and Subarticle NC-4620, Subsection NC,Section III of the ASME Code, FCI did not verify that a qualified procedure had been used for elevated temperature post weld heat treatment of castings.

Review of all pertinent. documents showed that qualified weld procedure 05-P1W-1A, Revision 1, had been used instead of the mistakenly reported procedure 05-P1W-1, dated 1-17-74. A re-issued Certificate of Conformance for the affected castings was reviewed.

This indicated that the correct weld procedure had been used.

3. (Closed) Nonconformance (81-01, Item C):

Contrary (to Paragraph Routing traveler) for a four15.3.1.f.

inch ASPEof FCI's QAM, Section a completed III, Class 1 Machine Vee-Ball valve contained a signature which indicated that only 50%

of a required hardfacin9 operation had been performed.

As per FCI's corrective action response to the NRC, dated July 31, 1981, the above Vee-Ball valve was reworked in accordance with the applicable drawings and procedures, and documented

~

per the QAM.

ORGANIZATION: FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

MARS 14ALLT0WN, IOWA REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99900105/86-01 RESULTS: PAGE 4 of 6 E. OTHER FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

1. Type 1073 Manual Valve Actuator Failures On May 23, 1986, Georgia Power Company (GPC) notified the NRC that handwheels for some manually operated butterfly valves were found to rotate freely without moving the valve disc. The actuator gear boxes (FCI Model 1073) were examined for the valves that failed to operate. Teeth were found to be broken off from the gear. sectors of these valves, allowing free rotation of the handwheel and rendering the valves inoperable.

There were two sizes of actuators that failed, a size 1 and a size

2. The size 1 actuator gear sector failed, according to GPC, because a partial tooth on the end of the gear was not strong enough to withstand the normal stopping force when the valve reached the full open or closed position. This tooth would hit the travel stop and break causing the next tooth to impinge on the stop, at an oblique angle, and also break. FCI claims that size 1 gear sectors should not fail if normal force is applied to the handwheel. Only under abusive conditions will the gear sectors fail. Review of FCI engineering drawings indicate that a revision to the size 1 worm gear sector drawing was made on February 2, 1983. This revision was made to include a note requiring partial teeth to be ground flush with the root diameter of the gear teeth. While it is true that a properly manufactured gear sector should not fail under normal loads, a gear with a partial tooth can fail under design conditions. FCI now ensures that size 1 gear sectors do not contain partial teeth.

The details of the size 2 actuator gear sector failure are more complex than that of the size 1. On February 25, 1981, FCI issued a Part 21 report notifying the NRC that a defect existed in the Model 1073 and 1074, size 2, manual valve actuators. A number of plants /

utilities were notified by FCI: Callaway 1, Wolf Creek 1, Waterford 3, and the Commonwealth Edison Company. This notification was for valve actuators that had already been shipped. It was also only applicable for valve actuators that were required to produce more than 8,000 inch-pounds of torque.

For valves that had not been shipped, FCI internal memo from G. R. Icenogle to L. Montione, dated 1/12/81, recommended the following: (1) valve, actuators that are required to deliver mcre than 8,000 inch-pounds of torque will be modified, (2) customers that receive valve actuators that are not required to output more than 8,000 inch-pounds of torque will be notified of this new maximum torque limit.

ORGANIZATION: FISHER CONTPOLS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA REPORT INSPECTION N0.: 99900105/86-01 RESULTS: PAGE 5 of 6 The modification to enable the size 2 actuator to deliver more than 8,000 inch-pounds of torque consisted of a material design change of the worm gear sector from a 3/4" cast iron to a 1-3/8" manganese-bronze. This increased the maximum torque rating to 16,000 inch-pounds.

The problem that occurred at Vogtle was due to FCI's failure to inform Vogtle that a new design limitation was being put into place.

Valve data sheets for the failed valves were reviewed and .it was found that many contained expected maximum torque ratings from the operator of 13,050 inch-peunds, the FCI catalogue value for a size 2, Type 1073 actuator. Nonconformance 86-01-04 addresses FCI's failure to notify their customers as per their planned corrective action.

2. 10 CFR Part 21 Procedure During the review of FCI's 1981 Part 21 submittal to the NRC, a concern developed surrounding FCI's Part 21 procedure for evaluating and reporting defects in nuclear, non-ASME components. While secticn 16.6 of the FCI nuclear quality assurance manual (NQAM) describes the evaluation and reporting process for defects in ASME Code items, the standard quality assurance manual (SOAM) makes no mention of 10 CFR Part 21. The SQAM is written to comply with ANSI N45.2 and is used for non-code nuclear components and parts.

Violation (86-01-01) addresses this item.

3. 10 CFR Part 21 Procurement Document Specification Contrary to Section 21.31 of 10 CFR Part 21, FCI did not assure that procurement documents for two (2) safety-related Limitorque motor operators specified that the provisions of 10 CFR Part 21 were applicable. On FCI purchase order (PO) 5184115, dated 9/27/85, Part 21 was not imposed for two (2) SMB-000-2 operators.

Millpower Supply Company (Duke) P0 K50386-73, dated 11/7/84, stated that Part 21 was applicable. On FCI P0 5183957, dated 8/2/85, Part 21 was also not imposed upon Limitorque. Bechtel P0 PAV2-42, originally dated 10/2/78, specified that Part 21 was applicable.

Violation (86-01-02) addresses this item.

l

ORGANIZATION: FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL INC.

MARSHALLTOWN, IOWA REPORT INSPECTION PAGE 6 of 6 N0.: 99900105/86-01 RESULTS:

4 Finished Parts Receivino Inspection Procedures Review of FCI's finished parts receiving inspection area revealed that personnel performing inspections did not have instructions or procedures to parform inspection activities. A sample inspection process was witnessed during which the FCI inspector stated that the part drawing was thi only document used for quantitative or qualita-tive acceptance cr teria. In addition, the back of the drawing was used as the document for recording acceptable lots and this was done with only the date. No acceptance criteria or lot sizes were specified.

Nonconformance (86-01-03) addresses this area.

F. PERSONS CONTACTED:

D. Rowley, Manager QA Documentation L. Metz, Quality Doc. Analyst R. Head, Sr. QA Specialist H. G. Rich, Manager Product Engineering C. Perdlick, Product Engineer J. Dresser, Engineer Qality and Analysis Group H. Dougall,-QA Analyst T. Inslaud, Manager Engr. Admin.

C. Colwell, Manager Project Planning & Control E. J. Munked, Applications Engineer I

l l

\ ~

l i

- D kk W  : -

4 Ad i

> > 1 3 z '

1 4 I g s ,

{ e  :  : ) $

~ ~l +!

gE c 4 ,-

4  : <

k d* id$ f t q Ui

• i j a 4,

s

. O s

$a.

N 9 e 4q D {o 4

=o v e "

W e 4 I

- - S R $ o 4 a Q ws :a L V

l ce te M ' .

8S" is D Q g 3

A V 4

~

. 4 yQ l 4

! * <4 e q o '

s . .

h e k 4 4 1 y d l d 4 g i q d \ N dc,a'<

a 5 '

y 3,I M

N 4 i a

Q s, a g q kt w v,

< x( 5 g 1 <

- s 2

- q < , g 4 -

g E . il 3 y 4 4 9 4 b d E Oj d y' d g U \6 ti k d cd s

k 4 k h5 4 kN y

$ '$aiE N T 1 23 $1 '$ $4 =

e l 5 . 3 k 's.

s 5 iD a

e g .

5 4 g ..

! Q Wd E 5" W C A e.

l ms 4 jh Q \ 3 g WJ (6 N

%. f3 25:

E EE " 44NDMd 4 d% ( G *$ 5][

Sm , ,,,

5 ,,b k NN 6M 7 b Q Nk W. &E R $ $h@j,'

.. . .a . , .. ; 'h% . . ..

- ~ -

n44 affd .

s p i a a ~

m a- % .w

- 3 %! s s 4

q 4

n w 2

4 d *o 3 4 s o ' ( 1, E

ke U 2

N 4 N*

a j o

I 1 3 O m g o -

N q f 0 rs

~

4 h b n

sa 1 4 3 1 , e .

4 s N et s m ts J s) -

.s , a a a n to 8 q b

4 1 ( 4 s h 4 n$

Es -5 4 0 y \S i ;s (b .

8S

.o =

RN s s

W m

Ng 2 n s

'*q u

%s  % N \

- \ q  % k. y \ ~

Q d I

= l 4 4 % u i 4 p l) y i d'{a 0

4 4 1 4 4 J j't .g 1 .

[ t  % e t ; 2 1 .

0

~ ] i k D Ni U $ 3 s 9 k

g o w e d[q a 6 s s 9 kk k

,o $ ~ $

7n 6s$

~ k,4 w

,a 8 c E xe ~N s - Q 0 W

=

E . A $*

l g g gg Ab

%) .

h i..i N . 5 Y $ s ..

d -

E h $4EC N $

8 M O M i.! .

- t s m x

( n=

M5 (P \ 4 s

$4 p' 4 i  %

1

• D

$$"G355 m3 b 2 !!

l l

E CE h k k i d h k k dd k ~$$358 i.ii,

-m u

s 'Qs t(Qgs n,N s c ewc

~

. . . . .. ee . .

~=

- - -