ML19225B458
| ML19225B458 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/19/1979 |
| From: | Sutton J, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19225B451 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900293 99900293-79-1, NUDOCS 7907250197 | |
| Download: ML19225B458 (5) | |
Text
U. S. fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI0fl 0FFICE OF 'flSPECTION Afl0 El1FORCEMEtlT REGION IV Report flo.
99900293/79-01 Program flo.
51300 Company:
Energy Products Group Gulf and Western Manufacturing Company 235 Kilvert Street Warwick, Rhode Island 02886 Inspection Conducted: March 26-30, 1979 9/'Jf.
Inspector:
,g!
,e g.W.Sutt'on,ContractorInspector, Vendor
/ [16te Inspection Branch Approved if
!//7/M D. E. Whitesell, Chief, ComponentsSection I Date Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on March 26-30, 1979 (99900293/79-01)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and applicable codes and standards including, Welding Procedure Specification, Welder Qualification and Review of Vendors Activities. The inspection involved twenty-eight (28) inspector hours on site by one (1) flRC inspector.
Results-In the three (3) areas inspected, no apparent deviations or unresolved items were identified in two (2) areas.
The following was identified in the remaining area:
Deviations: Welding Prccedure Specifications: Welding procedure gas flow rate not being maintained as required by the procedure.
(Enclosure, Item A),
specific weld metal deposit and flux identified in WPS not identified in the Procedure Qualification Record (PQR) (Enclosure, Item B).
Unresolved Items tione.
417 189 790725o/97 DETAILS A.
Persons Contacted J. Calloway, Welding Foreman
- L. P. Capron, Quality Assurance Manager L. K. Hosla, Senior Project Engineer
- Dr. J. F. Walter, Director of Engineering W. Williams, Project Engineer H_artford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company V. J. Smith, Authorized fluclear Inspector
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
B.
Control of Special Processes, Welding Procedure Specifications Use and Control 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that welding procedure sper.ifications used for production welding were controlled and used in accordance with the Energy Products Group (EPG) QA Program and fiRC and contract designated Code requirements.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objective was accomplished by:
a.
Review of the QA manual, Section 7, Revision 2, " Welding."
b.
Review of the following welding procedures, OP7A, Revision 7, Hard Surfacing Gas Tungsten Arc process, HS-SA-6, Revision 6, Sub Arc process, HS-GTAW-25, Revision 2, Hardsurfacing, Gas Tungsten Arc (Haynes).
c.
Review of weld procedure qualification records for the above procedures, to verify that they include all required essential and nonessential variables.
d.
Review of Job Order 12177, Specification flMP-2-P3003D.
e.
Review of Job Order 12241, Specification 2BVS-211.
417 190 f.
Review of Job Specification 7220-M-221, Revision 2.
g.
Review of weld material certification record for material lot number 1860-7-1338.
h.
Review of applicable Section of ASME Code Section IX.
i.
Observation of welding activities in the shop area.
j.
Review of Equipment Calibration requirements.
k.
Discussions with shop personnel.
3.
Findings a.
Deviations (See Enclosure, Notice of Deviation).
-Item A During the observation of the welding activities, it was noted, that one welder using Welding Procedure Specification (WPSI number HS-GTAW-25, the shielding gas flow rate was 25 cubic feet / hour (CFH). However, the gas flow rate specified by the WPS was 30-35 CFH.
QW-282.4,(i) of Section IX of the ASME Code, requires requalification of the WPS, for GTAW process, if the flow rate of the shielding gas is decreased 10 precent or more.
The welding operation was suspended, and the welder was given a nonconforming practice report notice.
To prevent recurrence, an instruction and training session was held for all welders and QC inspectors concerning this deviation.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
C.
Welder Qualifications 1.
Objective The objective of this area of the inspection was to verify that EPG had implemented the requirements for qualification of welders in accordance with the QA Manual and applicable NRC and ASME Code requirements.
417 191
. 2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objective was accomplished by:
a.
Review of QA Manual, Section 7, Welding.
b.
Review of welder qualification records.
c.
Review of welders' log for qualification status.
d.
Review of the welder assignment log.
e.
Discussion with shop personnel.
Findings a.
Deviation flone.
b.
Unresolved Item itcne.
D.
Review of Vendor's Activitics 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were:
a.
To review the Vendor's Activities to access their impact on future IE inspections.
b.
Review of fabrication / manufacturing techniques and equipment.
c.
Review of current work loads.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by observing the manufacturing / fabrication processes implemented by the vendor, and discussions with the vendor's cognizant personnel.
3.
Findings The vendor has the capability to design, manufacture and test ASMr
,de Class 1, 2 and 3 nuclear control valves ranging in f.*.~
1,, a^)
. size from 1/2".to 28" and pressure ratings from 150# to 6000# and for ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 valve parts and appurtenances, and piping subassemblies.
The Vendor has the welding capabilities to perform manual, semi-autcmatic and automatic welding processes, including hardfacing.
The Vendor presently subcontracts the heat trea t activities, and all nondestructive examinations, except for Liquid Penetrant (PT) and Ultrasonic (UT) examinations, which are performed in-house.
The Vendor holds valid ASME " Certificates of Authorization" Number 1209 for use of the ASME "N" Stamp and Certificate Number N1210 for use of the "NPT" Stamp for Class 1, 2 and 3 valves and valve parte and appurtenances and piping subassemblies. The vendor presently has contracts for nuclear components which represents approximately forty percent (40%) of the current work load.
E.
Exit Interview The inspector met with management representatives (denot-i in para-graph A) at the conclusion of the inspection.
The inspector sum-marized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The management representatives had no comment in respo:
the items discussed by the inspector.
417 193