ML20148Q896
| ML20148Q896 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/30/1978 |
| From: | Agee J, Hunnicutt D, Rutherford W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148Q695 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900219 NUDOCS 7811300168 | |
| Download: ML20148Q896 (9) | |
Text
-
VENDOR INSPECTION REPORT U. S. fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900219/78-01 Company: General Electric Company S'litchgear Business D~rtment 6901 Elmwood Avenue Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19142 Inspection Conducted: February 13-17, 1978 Inspectors: h'/] weaMP
[ A J. R. Agee, Contractor Inspector, Vendor 3 9/78
Dat'e
/ Inspection Branch hf) un, W 3/Vf78
/ Rkb on bIE hY.
Approved by: u;v>~ &^ 3/h ?/7R D. M. Hunnicutt, Chief, ComponentsSection II, 'Date Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on February 13-17, 1978 (99900219/78-01)
Areas Inspected: Portions of Quality Assurance Manual / Program, Design Tests /
Production Tests, Hardware Inspection, Equipment Service Problems. The inspection involved sixty (60) inspector-hours on site by two (2) inspectors.
Resul ts : In the four (4) areas inspected; no apparent deviations were identiTied in one (1) area while three (3) unresolved items were identified in two (2) of the remaining areas. Deviations and unresolved items identified with the related areas are described in the following paragraphs:
78113001Co3
_2 Deviations: QA Manual / Program - procedure does not describe engineering responsibilities associated with qualification testing activities.
(Enclosure, Item A); QA Manual / Program - manual does not accurately describe or identify engineering procedures for engineering change notice control and qualification test reports in use. (Enclosure, Item B); QA Manual / Program -
quality procedure does not adequately desr. ribe the responsibilities of the Design Engineer and the Contract Requisition Engineer (Enclosure, Item C);
Design Tests / Production Tests - design adequacy documents did not identify "special" requirements imposed by customer. (Enclosure, Item D); Hardware inspection - switchgear products had been inspected and signed off for release for packaging when electrical defects had not been corrected.
(Enclosure, Item E); Hardware Inspection - switchgear door welds were missing and other welds were not spaced according to the design / fabrication drawing.
(Enclosure, Item F.)
Unresolved Item: Design Tests - qualification testing programs to satisfy contractual requirements and IEEE-323 are in progress. (See Details Section, paragraph C. 3.b. ) Equipment Service Problems - results of GE investigation I
and follow-up relative to the relay screw problem. (See Details Section, paragraph E.3.b.(1).) Equipment Service Problems - loose pigtail connections may cause degradation of the breaker contacts and consequently decrease the life expectancy of the contacts. (See Details Section, paragraph E.3.b.(2).)
_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^
DETAILS SECTION A. Persons Contacted
- W. C. Adams, Manager Service Engineering J. R. Brown, Contract Requisition Engineer J. L. Budka, Manager Traffic & Shipping .
- R. B. Clough, Manager Medium Veltage Operations R. Crowell, Switchgear Development Engineer J. A. Damasco, Quality Appraisal Supervisor
- M. L. Froland, Manager Philadelphia Manufacturing J. J. Hall, Relay Engineer
- J. A. Higgins, Manager Quality Appraisal P. Juneau, Chemist
- S. E. King, Counsel
- V. F. Kwasneski, Quality Control Specialist W. L. Leever, Breaker Foreman
- D. J. Lemmerman, Proposal Engineer
- A. A. Little, Manager Quality Engineering
- R. H. Miller, Manager Switchgear Development Engineering l
P. P. Montesanti, Manager Purchasing
- D. C. Moyer, Manager M/C Final Assembly
- P. Reece, Manager Switchgear & Breaker Engineering L. Scharf, Manager Relay Engineering C. A. Scott, Manager Quality Systems
- W. B. Sierer, Quality Assurance, Process Control Engineer
- H. C. Snowden, Senior Field Engineer K. N. Smith, Senior Welding Engineer R. G. E. Steever, Contract Requisition Engineer
- Denotes those in attendance at the' exit interview meeting.
B. Quality Assurance Manual / Program
- 1. Obj ec tives The that the: objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify
- a. QA program satisfies the intent of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and is responsive to the requirements of the industry's codes and standards.
._ =- -
i P
-4
- b. QA program is implemented as described for significant on-going activities related to design and change control.
- 2. Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
- a. Review of the QA Manual in the areas of Design and Change Control.
- b. Review of selected Engineering Procedures.
- 3. Findings
- a. Deviations (1) See Enclosure, Item A.
(2) See Enclosure, Item B.
(3) See Eaclosure, Item C.
- b. Unresolved Item None.
I C. Design Tests / Production Tests
- 1. Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify thht: ,
- a. Procedures have been established for performing design tests and production tests and that these procedures are consistent
[, with applicable standards and codes.
- b. Specific service conditions identified in procurement documents are satisfied by equipment qualifications.
- c. Established test procedures are being implemented for Class lE equipment.
- 2. Methods of Accomplishment The_ preceding objectives were accomplished by:
- a. Discussions with the personnel who are responsible for the quality of products that are supplied to meet customer
~
contractural requirements:
(1) Contract Requisition Engineer (CRE).
4 (2) Design Engineer.
.(3) Quality Control Engineer (QCE).
- b. Peview of CRE responsible functions for preparation of equipment surl:ary data for products for nuclear, safety-related, Class IE switchgear equipment.
- c. Review of program for qualifying 4.6 KV 350 N/C switchgear j to IEEE-323 1974 in accordance with customer specification !
10466-E-009, Revision 5, July 21,1977. 1
- d. Review of Design Adequacy Review Certification Reports <
covering Customer Specifications 21 A9300, Revision 0, {
21 A9300, Revision 1, and 10466-E-009, Revision 5. !
. e. Review of QCE production test records.
- 3. Findings !
- a. Deviations-See Enclosure, Item D.
- b. Unresolved Items Customer specifications reviewed require qualification to IEEE standard 323-1974. The specifications specifically supplement the above standard with the following type of requirements:
(1) Qualification testing to be performed to the most severe sequence.
(2) Establishment of equipment qualified 1ife.
(3) Data on how aging affects the seismic capability of the equipment.
l i
Review of the qualification program revealed the test sequence required in IEEE 323-19/4 is not being followed. Much of the aging work is performed on noterials rather than components or subassemblies. Seismic testing performed thus far has been performed on new (unaged) equipment.
Consequently, the on-going qualification program does not appear to satisfy contractual requirements.
This item will remain open with GE SBD until the qualification test program satisfy contractual requirements. The subject will remain open with applicable licensees until SAR commitments are in agreement with the actual qualification work performed.
D. Hardware Inspection
- 1. Objective The objective of this area of the inspection was to identify any condition related to equipment design and assembly that could adversely affect the equipment or system performance.
- 2. Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objective was accomplished by:
- a. Inspecting visible welds against shop fabrication drawings.
- b. Inspecting arrangement of electricsl leads against assembly drawings and inspecting lead connections for tightness.
- c. Inspecting frame for vis'ible welder and inspector stamps.
- d. Inspecting installed relay model numbers against device summary sheets.
- 3. Findings
- a. Deviations (1) See Enclosure, Item E (2) See Enclosure, Item F.
- b. Unresolved Items None.
E. E_quiyment Service Problems
- 1. Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that the manufacturer is aware of equipment problems, failures and malfunctions that have occurred in service and that the manu#acturer is taking appropriate corrective action.
- 2. Methods of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
- a. Discussing the following two problems with personnel who are responsible for the quality of products:
(.1 ) During checkout of draw-out type, time over current relays at a nuclear power plant, it was noted that in a significant number of relays, wiring connections to the relay screw-type terminals were loose. Attempts made to tighten the screws proved unsuccessful in a significant number of cases. Inspection of the terminal screws revealed that the screws were full threaded up to the head resulting in the inability to obtain a tight connection.
(2) During checkout of 4.16 Ky breakers at the nuclear plant, it was noted'that the bolts securing the pigtail leads of the stationary arcing contact assembly were loose. Tha licensee's concern was that the failure of these leads to correctly carry the arcing current could prohibit the arc chute from extinguishing the arc and potentially cause faulty operation of the breaker.
- b. Discussing corrective action taken.
(.1 ) General Electric has provided replacement screws for the plant and performed a special inspection of their own inventory. The inventory inspection revealed no defective screws. However, the plant reported that
"2
^
some of the replacement screws were defective. General Electric advised that the screws need not be fully threaded up to the head. The GE requirement is that the threads be within 0.01 inch of the head bearing surfaces.
GE is continuing to investigate the cause of the problem and committed to taking appropriate action after deter-mining the cause and extent of the problem.
(2) General Electric disagreed with the conclusion that the loose leads would cause faulty operation of the breaker.
General Electric had provided the plant with appropriate corrective action information and added they do not con-sider this item a generic problem since there have been no other incidents reported.
General' Electric advised the bolt design securing the leads was changed in '1975 to a self locking screw design.
- 3. Findings
- a. Deviations None.
- b. Unresolved Items (1) NRL is awaiting the results o'f the General Electric investigation and follow-up action relative to the relay screw problem prior to determining the need for initiating independent NRC a'ction.
(2) HRC believes the loose pigtail connections may cause degradation of the breaker contacts and consequently decrease the life expectancy of the contacts. A list of plants potentially having the problem was obtained from General Electric. NRC is evaluating the need for a circular that addresses the problem.
F. Exit Interview The inspector met with the management representatives denoted in para-graph A. 'at the conclusion of the inspection on February 17, 1978, at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, plant. The inspe.ctor summa-ized the scope of the inspection and identified the findings made for the following areas that were inspected including:
i i
1
.~ .
~9-
- 1. QA Manual / Program.
- 2. Design Tests / Production Tests.
I
- 3. Hardware Inspection.
- 4. Equipment Service Problems.
The management representatives acknowledged the statements by the inspector concerning the areas inspected and the findings identified. I
! t
. j 4 !
+
i I
i j
l
\
l p
)