ML19224C582
| ML19224C582 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/25/1979 |
| From: | Clemenson F, Kelley W, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19224C579 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900061 99900061-79-1, NUDOCS 7907030039 | |
| Download: ML19224C582 (11) | |
Text
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900061/79-01 Program No. 51300 Company:
Velan Engineering Ltd.
2145 Ward Avenue Inspection at: Montreal, Quebec, H4M-1T6-Canada
' -tion Conducted: April 3-5, 1979 Itsnectors:
R
/)
8
/97[
Wm.D.Kelley,Cdntractoy[ Inspector, Vendor
/Date Inspection Branch V
Accompanyin5
~~
4 c' /
((
N fI[
Personnel: F. Clemenson, Senior Sys,ttmy) Analysis, Plant
/ Date Systems Branch, Office of/ Nuclear Reactor v
Regulations
-f/
Approved y: G L vGnuoul dWU f5/fff*
D. E. Whitesell, Chief, ComponentsSection I, Date Vendor Inspection Branch Surimary Inspection on April 3-5, 1979 (99900061/79-01)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation e' 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and applicable Codes and stanJards, including general review of vendors activities, manufacturing process control, training, and audits. Also reviewed previously identified items and pending action Sequential No.78-250.
The inspection involved thirty-six (36) inspector-hours on site by one (1) NRC inspector.
Results:
In the four (4) areas inspected, no apparent deviations or unresolved items were identified.
272 288 7907 030g7,
Details (Prepared by Wm. D. Kelley)
A.
Persons Contacted Velan Engineering Ltd. (VEL)
- E. I. Francois, Corporate Quality Assurance Manager
- M. J. Richards, Quality Assurance Manager M. Rodier, Manager of Quality Control
- A.
K. Velan, President
- I. C. Velan, General Manager P. I. Velan, Plant Manager (Plant #2)
- Denotes those persons who attended Exit Interview (See paragraph H.).
B.
General Review of Vendor's Activities 1.
The ASME issued VEL Certificates of Authorizations N-1738 and N-1739, authorizing the use of the "N" symbol for Class 1, 2, and 3 valves and fluid conditioning devices, and the use of the "NPT" symbol for Class 1, 2, and 3 valve parts and appurtenances.
The authorizations expire May 3, 1980.
2.
The authorized inspection agency is Gouvernement du Quebec, Ministere du Travail et de la Main-doeuvre.
The authorized nuclear inspector is a full time resident inspector.
3.
VEL's contribution to the nuclear industry represents approxi-mately fifty percent; however, all future orders for nuclear valves for the United States domestic nuclear reactors will be manufactured in the new Velan Valve Corporation plant at Williston, Vermont.
4.
Concerning the regional daily reports that the actual weights of certain swing check valves, supplied by VEL, were heavier than the weights used for the seismic analysis, the following information was obtained:
a.
The weight of some of the valves as indicated on the drawings are incorrect.
However, there was no Code requirement, or customer's purchase documents, which required the weight of valves to be given.
272 289
. b.
All utilities were notified on April 4, 1979, that some drawing weights were incorrect, and that the calculations of the valve's actual weights are in progress.
c.
The ccrrective action is as follows:
(1)
Review all nuclear purchase orders received since 1968, and prepare a list of the customers that had purchased valves designed prior to 1974.
(2)
Calculate the weights of valves designed prior to 1974, and if there are any such valves in house, verify the calculations by weighing the valves. To be completed by April 20, 1979.
(3)
If any of the valves are heavier than the stated weights on the drawings, the purchaser of the valves will be notified.
(4) The quality assurance department has issued an approved procedure which requires the shipping department to weigh completed valves, and record the actual weights.
d.
All new valve designs (from late 1974), have the calculated weight of the valves, indicated on the drawings.
No further action.concerning this matter is anticipated.
C.
Previouslv Identified Items (Closed) Deviation (Report No. 78-02):
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B :o 10 CFR 50, paragraph flCA 4134.5 of Secticn III to the ASME Code, and VEC QA Manual Section VEL-QC-750A, puragraph 10.e.,
minutes of the monthly management meeting did not address the corrective action and establish commitment dates for item 12.b. on audit schedule flo.18.
The inspector verified that an audit finding was filled out and the corrective action has been completed.
(Closed) Deviation (Report flo. 78-02):
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, paragraph flCA 4134.5 of Section III to the ASME Code, and VEC QA Manual Section VEL-QC-506A, paragraph 3.1, purchase requisitions were not prepared ar.: issued by the designated planner.
272 290
. The inspector verified that purchase requisitions were attached to the handwritten documents and signed by the Plant Manager as required by Section VEL-QC-506A of the Quality Assurance Manual.
(Closed) Deviation (Report No. 78-02):
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, paragraph NCA 4134.5 of Section III of the ASME Code, VEL procedure VEL-QCI-138A, and Welding Procedure Specification No. VEL-P-642(P8) the process inspections were not being documented as required.
The inspector verified that a contact pyrometer had been used ta measure interpass temperature and the VEL inspector records his verification of the interpass temperature.
Also, Section VEL-QCI-138A of the Quality Assurance Manual had been revised requiring one attribute be verified per shift and the revision had been accepted by the Authorized Inspection Agency's Specialist.
D.
Manufacturing process Control 1.
Obje.tives The ot jectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that tie vendor's manufacturing processes were:
a.
P(rformed under a controlled system which meets the NRC rt les and regulations, ASME Code requirements, the vendor's commitments in his ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program, aid contract' requirements.
b.
Effective in assuring product quality.
2.
Methoc of Accomplishment The obje tives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 8; (1) Section VEL-QCI-130A, Control of Fabrication Process-Operation and Routing Sheets, (2) Section VEL-QCI-131A, Control of Nonconforming Materials (_ Corrective Action), and
(.3 ) Section VEL-QCI-135A, Identification and Control of Materials and Parts Traceability, 272 291 to verify that procedures had been established to prescribe a control system of the manufacturing processes.
b.
Review of the procedures listed in paragraph a. abuce to verify that the control system requires shop travelers, or process control check lists to be prepared containing the document numbers and revisions to which the process must confom, and requires all processes and tests to be perfomed by qualified personnel using quC Hied procedures, c.
Review of the shop traveler or process control check list to verify that it has spaces for reporting results of specific operations. or reference to other documents where results are maintai,4d.
Also that it includes provisions for signoff by the vedor indicating the date on which the operation cr test was rfomed, and that it provides space for signoff and date by the authorized nuclear inspector for those activities which he wit:. esses.
d.
Review of shop travelers to verify that they comply with the above referenced procedures, and that the travelers are reviewed by the ANI for the selection of his mandatory hold points.
Interviews with pu sonnel to verify that they are knowledge-e.
able in the procedures applicable to manufacturing process control.
~
3.
Findings _
a.
The inspector verified that the vendor's manufacturing processes are perfomed under a controlled system which is consistent with the NRC rules and regulations, the ASME Code requirements, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program, and that the system is eTrective in achieving the specified product quality.
b.
Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
E.
Training 1.
Objectives Tne objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain whether procedures had been developed and approved pphp ggg prescribing a system for training personnel whose activities affect the quality of their products in a manner consistent with NRC rules and regulations, ASME Code requirements, and the.
vendor's ccmitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program, also, ascertain that the training procedures were being properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance, Revision 8, Section VEL-QCI-373, Indoctrination and Training of Quality Related Personnel, to verify that the vendor had established procedures to prescribe a system for training personnel whose activities affect the quality of their products.
b.
Review of the following procedures; (1)
LP-2.1, Revision 2, Training and Indoctrination Program, Q4 Administrators, and (2)
LP-2.2, Revision 2, Training and Indoctrination Program, Mateorologist, to verify tha't they i3d been prepared by the designated authority, approved by management, and reviewed by QA; and that they orovide fer formal training and retraining of new employees, inspection and testing personnel, personnel perforning special processes, audit personnel, and personnel invohed in quality related design and procurement activities.
c.
Review of the following procedures; (1)
LP-6.1, Revision 1, Velan Training and Indoctrination Program, Internal Auditors, and (2)
LP-6.2, Revision 1, Training and Indoctrination Program, Cuality Audit Manager, to verify that they provided for the indoctrination with the technical objectives of the product, the Codes and standtrds to be used, and the quality assurance / control elements that are to be employed.
Also, verify that they ed for the testing of the perfo;' nance and proficiency 2 ~'2 2 9 3 of the nondestructive testing personnel, and retraining and recertification if the evaluation of the performances are not acceptable.
d.
Review of training records of inspectors, nondestructive testing personnel, auditors, designers and quality assurance, and procurement personnel to verify that the procedures and.
necessary training documents were available to the personnel performing the training, and that the training procedures are being properly and effectively implemented.
e.
Interviewed pecsonnel to verify whether the training performed was commensurate with the personnel assignments.
3.
Findings The inspector verified that procedures had been developed a.
and approved by the vendor prescribing a system for training personnel whose activities affect. the quality of their product in a manner consistent with NRC rules and regulations, ASME Code requirements and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program, and the training procedures are being properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
b.
Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
F.
Audits 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to veri'y that:
a.
Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor to prescribe a system for auditing which is consistent with NRC rules and regulations, ASME Code requirements, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
b.
The audit procedures are being properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
272 294
. 2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 8; (1) Section VEL-QC-750A, Quality Co'1 trol Audits, and (2)
Section VEL-QCI-373, Indoctrination and Training of Quality Related Personnel, to verify that the vendor had established procedures which prescribes a system for systematic and periodic audits.
b.
Review of the following procedures; (1)
LP-6.1, Revision 1, Velan Training and Indoctrination Program, Internal Auditors, and (2)
LP-6.2, Revision 1, Training and Indoctrination Program, Quality Audit Manager, to verify that they had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by responsible management, and reviewed by the quality assurance staff.
c.
Review of the documents listed in paragraphs a. and b.
above, to verify that they identified the organization responsible for auditing, established audit personnel qualifications, provided for the training and indoctrination of the audit personnel, established the essential elements of the audit system, assures coverage of all elements of the quality assurance program, and requires reporting to and follow-up by both the audited and auditing organizations regarding corrective action.
d.
Review of selective audit reports to verify thtt the procedures and the necessary audit system docunents, are available to the auditing personnel, and that tee procedures are being properly and effectively implemented.
272 295
_9_
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that:
(1)
Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor to prescribe a system for auditing which is consistent with NRC rules and regualation, ASME Code requirements, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
(2) The audit procedures were properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
b.
Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
G.
Pending Action (SequenV.aj No.78-250 dated September 18, 1978) 1.
Background Information NRC-IE1 was notified by a utility on August 17, 1978, of deficiency in the body casting of an ASME Class 2, 20 inch testable check valve, in accordance with their interpretation of 10 CFR 50.55(e).
The deficiency was identified after the review of the radiographs and associated documentation, for a 24 inch check valve which was to serve as a representative sample for traceability and acceptance of the radiography for five casting, supplied by a French foundry.
The radiograpiis of three areas of the valve were uninterpretable to the site radiographer, due to excessive density. As a results of this finding, all radiographs were rejected for the five valves.
A review was conducted by the architect-engineer, to identify unacceptable radiographs.
These radiographs had been previously reviewed at the foundry, by the VEL Level III radiographer, and the architect-engineer's qualified representative, and were found to be acceptable. The areas covered by the unacceptable radiographs, were reradiographed; and four of the valves were found to be acceptable.
However the radiographs of one 20 inch, testable check valve, exhibited six areas which were questionable.
Four of these six areas, close to the surface, were successfully eliminated by grinding. The remaining two questionable areas were reradiographed and ultrasonic examination performed, and reviewed by the architect-engineer, and the VEL Level III radiographers and were found to be acceptable.
272 296
. In addition, all areas were magnetic particle inspected and no rejectable indications were identified.
The valve was accepted based on the nondestructive test reports dated August 2, 1978.
It was detennined that the castings, supplied by the specific French foundry, were generic to two (2) U. S. nuclear facilities.
However, the radiographer at one site, found the radiographs and valves acceptable, while the radiographer at the other site, found the density of some radiographs too dense for him to successfully interpret. Since subsequent RT, UT, and f4T found the one questionable valve to be acceptable, it appears that this problem is related to one interpreter's skill to success-fully read film with greater densities, than another interpreter.
2.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to ascertain whether or not the French foundry involved is furnishing or has furnished safety related components for any other nuclear facility in the United States, and if this should be treated as a generic problem.
3.
tiethod of Accomplishment The foregoing objectives were accomplished by review of a VEL memo, dated April 4,1979, from the General Manager to the inspector, and discussions with the General fianager.
4.
Findings a.
From the document reviewed and discussions with the VEL General Manager, the following was determined:
(1)
Casting had been purchased from the French foundry in question on VEL pruchase order CS 17542 for only one addition nuclear plant in the United States.
(2) The radiographs had been reviewed and accepted by VEL Level III radiographer and the architect-engineers representative for the utility.
(3) tio additional casting are being ordered from the French foundry for nuclear plant valves supplied in the United States.
272 297
. (4) The French foundry has baen issued an ASME Quality System Certificate (Materiais) as a material manufacture of ferrous and high alloy steel cascings and spun tubes.
The certificate expires on J"ne 9, 1981.
(5) Based on the above information supplied by VEL, this item is not a generic problem.
b.
Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
H.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on April 5,1979, the inspector met with the company's management, identified in paragraph A, for the purpose of informing them as to the results of the inspection.
During this meeting, management was informed no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
The company's managements acknowledged the inspectors statement and had no comments.
272 298