ML19253C214
| ML19253C214 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/01/1979 |
| From: | Kelley W, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253C209 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900049 99900049-79-2, NUDOCS 7911300194 | |
| Download: ML19253C214 (11) | |
Text
9 U. S. NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900049/79-02 Program No. 51300 Company:
Atwood & Morrill Company 285 Canal Street Salem, Massachuetts 01970 Inspection Conducted: September 12-13, 1979 Inspectors:
' e, e/[
A-
/o -o/ - ##
Wm. D. Kelley, Cont (actor Inspector Date '
ComponentsSection I Vendor Inspection Branch Approved by:
/.,
6o d
/O -o/ -f.i D. E. Whitesell, Chief Date ComponentsSection I Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on September 12-13, 1979 (99900049/79-02)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and applicable codes and standards including: review of quality assurance program, audits, calibration; review of previously identified items; review of the feed back information concerning the closure time of main steam isolation valves on Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah Unit 1 Plant; and conducted management meeting and exit interview. The inspection involved sixteen (16) inspector-hour on site by one (1) NRC inspector.
Results:
In the five (5) areas inspected, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
1440 190
"' 13 00 02....
2 DETAILS A.
Persons Contacted Atwood and Morrill Co., Inc. (AM)
- J. M. Cowley, Vice President of Engineering
- F. A. Crippen, Vice President of Manufacturing
- W. F. Emerson, Quality Control Manager A. McKay, Engineering Manager E. H. Morency, Quality Control Supervisor A. Niciewsky, Quality Assurance Engineer
- V. W. Toneatti, Corporate Quality Assurance Manager A. Webber, Service Manager Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co.
- G. Pirie - Authorized Nuclear Inspector
- Denotes those persons who attended the exit interview.
(See paragraph J)
B.
Revi-w of Quality Assurance Program 1.
C5jectives The objectives of this inspection were to ascertain whether the QA program has been documented in writing, and if properly implemented, will ensure that the specified quality of completed components has been achieved in compliance with NRC rules and regulations, code and contract requirements and the commitments in the Quality Assurance Manual. Also, ascertain whether the program provides for the following:
Management's policy statements concerning QA.
a.
b.
Delineates how the QA organization is structured, to achieve appropriate independence from scheduling and costs, the freedom and independence to identify quality problems, initiate appropriate resolutions, and verify corrective action.
Whether the duties and authority of the QA staff are clearly c.
delineated in writing, and that they have access to a level of management that can ensure effective implementation of the QA program elements, and to enforce positive and timely corrective action.
1440 19i
3 d.
Detailed written procedures are properly reviewed, approved, released, and issued to control quality activities, as appropriate.
e.
A training and indoctrination program to improve or maintain the proficiency of personnel performing quality activities, and personnel verifying that quality activities have been correctly perfo rmed.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual.
b.
Review of appropriate organization charts.
c.
Review of the documents concerning the authority duties, independence and freedom of the Quality Assurance staff.
d.
Review of Statement of Authority, dated February 1,1979, signed by the President of AM.
Review of documents to verify that they had been reviewed and e.
approved by authorized personnel.
f.
Review of the training and indoctrination program requirements and documentation.
g.
Interviews with cognizant personnel.
h.
Observation of work and test in progress.
3.
Findings a.
The evidence demonstrates that the QA program has been documented in writing and clearly defines the duties, authority, and organi-zational independence and freedom of the QA staff. Detailed writ-ten implementing documents are appropriately reviewed, approved, released, and issued by authorized personnel. The QA staff has access to a level of management to ensure effective implementation of the program and timely and positive corrective action of enforce-ment items. A viable training and indoctrination pvraram has been implemented for upgrading, and maintaining, the prr s iencies of personnel involved in quality activities.
b.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unrcsolved items were identified.
1440 192
l l
4 C.
Management Meeting 1.
Objectives The objectives of this meeting were to accomplish the following:
To meet with the Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc., (AM) management a.
and those persons responsible for the administration of the ASME acce ced Quality Assurance program, and to inform them r
of the NRC assessment of their implementation of their program.
b.
To determine any change in the company's involvement in the commercial nuclear valve business.
To explain changes in the NRC direct inspection program including c.
the LCVIP organization, and VIB inspection methods and docu-mentation.
d.
To inform management of the present status of the NRC evaluation of the ASME inspection system.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by a meeting on September 13, 1979. The following is a summary of the meeting:
a.
Attendees were:
Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc.
J. M. Cowley, Vice President of Engineering F. A. Crippen, Vice President of Manufacturing W. F. Emerson, Quality Control Manager V. W. Toneatti, Corporate Quality Assurance Manager Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co.
G. Pirie, Authorized Nuclear Inspector b.
The present VIB organization was described and its relationship to NRC Region IV and the NRC Headquarters component of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
c.
The present VIB function was described including, its objectives, structure, and the more significant program changes.
1440 193
5 d.
The conduct of VIB inspections was described and how the inspections results are documented and reported, and what the responses to reports should include. How proprietary information is handled, the Public Document Room, and the White Book were again emphasized.
The purpose, scope, and status of the NRC's two year program e.
to evaluate the ASME inspection system as an acceptable independent third party was discussed.
f.
The company's contribution to the nuclear industry was discussed including current and projected activities, the status of the ASME certification of authorization, and the third party inspection services.
3.
Results Management acknowledged the NRC presentation as being understood by them, and provided the inspector with the information concerning the company's activities and products contained in paragraph D.
D.
General Review of Vendor's Activities 1.
There is no change in the status of ASME issued Certificates of Authorization to AM or the authorized inspection agency as reported in NRC RIV Report 99900049/79-01.
2.
AM's contribution to the nuclear industry represents approximately fifty percent (50%) of its total workload.
3.
AM was informed by Jos.-T. Ryerson & Son, Inc., on September 11, 1979, that aluminum alloy plate 1.00 inch through 1.74 inches in thickness purchased by AM on their purchase order AM-15452 dated September 7, 1976, may have random, localized soft spots of various sizes on the bottom surface in the as heat treated condition. AM has determined that this material was used for tools & fixtures and is not reportable under Code of Federal Regulation Part 21.
4.
The inspector observed an are strike on a main steam isolation valve body that apparently had been made during the welding or removal of the hold down lugs. There had been no inspection performed since the welding operation. The shop traveler did require the hold down lugs to be removed and the area to be nondestructive tested and the are strike would have been noted and repaired at the time; however, to 1440 194
6 prevent the possibility of it being overlooked the quality control manager instructed the quality control supervisor to generate a non-conformance :ceport.
5.
The inspector observed five shop c avelers for Class II check valves that did not list the removal of hold down lugs and nondestructive testing of the affected areas as an operation. Th quality control manager expained that these were a new standard type traveler that,
were being used on this one order to determine its effectiveness.
The shop travelers and the master copy were revised immediately to include the removal of the hold down lugs and nondestructive testing of the affected area. Other shop travelers were selected at random in the shop and it was found that they all listed operations for the removal of the hold down lugs and nondestructive testing of the affected area.
E.
Previously Identified Items 1.
(Closed) Deviation (Report No. 79-01, Item 1): Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, paragraph NCA-4134.5 of Section III to the ASME Code, and the vendor's ASME accepted Quality Ass"rance Program Procedure No. 20-67-01, cover on Process Order 140a8 had an outside diameter less than the specified minimum diameter.
The inspector verified AM generated a Nonconformance Report which was reviewed by the cognizant design engineer, and instructions for repair were issued. The repair was accomplished in accordance with these instructions.
In addu.fon a special training session for the receiving inspectors was conducted and the record of training was available, also the vendor who was responsible for supplying the undersize cover had been contacted and instruction issued to preclude future problems.
2.
(Closed) Deviation (Report No. 79-01, Item 2): Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, paragraph NCA-4134.5 of Section III to the ASME Code, and paragraph 4.2.2 of Section 4 of tne ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual:
Sequence 20, which signifies all welding and machining was complete a.
on shop Process Order 14008 Item 75, was signed off as complete but the finished machining of the inlet weldend had not been completed.
b.
Sequence 20 on Shop Process Order 13952, Item 05, had been signed off as complete; however, weld numbers 1, 2, & 3, which are included in sequence 20 had not been completed.
1440 195
7 The inspector verified that AM had conducted a training session for all parties responsible for the signoff on the Shop Process Orders, to do so only when the operation is completed; also, all welds were numbered as reflected on the Shop Process Orders and drawings so that the status of individual welds will be maintained until completed.
F.
Closure Time of the Main Steam Isolation Valves on Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah Unit 1 Plant The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) placed their purchase order No. 72C54-92647 dated August 9, 1971, with AM for eight 32 inch 600# ASA Main Steam Isolation Valves for Sequoyah Units 1 and 2 with delivery dates of May 10, 1972, for Unit I and June 7, 1972, for Unit 2.
The TVA design specification N2M-47-R0 specified that the closure time of these valves be less than 5.0 seconds. The eight valves were tested in'the AM Salem, MA., shops and they met the specified closure time, and were shipped to the Sequoyah site in early 1974. The tests were witnessed by TVA respresentatives.
TVA informed AM in their letter of January 6,1975, that due to a design change, it was necessary to change the schematic control diagram shown on AM drawing 21245-H, and redesign the cylinder mounted panel board on AM drawing 21348-H. AM were instructed to change their control diagram to agree with TVA enclosed sketch SK111874 JLD. TVA requested early delivery to meet its preoperational testing schedule, and one percent thermal power hot functional tests, at Sequoyah Unit 1, which was scheduled to start November 1, 1975.
The redesigned control system and panels for the eight valves were manufac tured and the electrical check of the solenoid valves operability was per-formed at the AM, Salem, Massachuetts, plant and shipped to Sequoyah site during October 1975. The new panels were installed insitu on valves by the TVA field forces. The AM service personnel were not involved.
In May 1979 TVA requested any information that AM could supply to help determine why these valves with the new control system, woald not meet the specified minimum closing time of 5.0 seconds.
An AM service engineer went to the Sequoyah site during June 1979 and tests were conducted on two of the valves; There was no improvement in the closure time. AM then recommended thr.t TVA exchange the Watts Bar or Bellefonte panels, for the ones installed at Sequoyah, to determine whether the closure speed war, improved. This change is currently being performed and the test results are not yet available.
G.
Equipment Calibration 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
L440
!96 Deee
8 Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor to a.
prescribe a system to assure that tools, gages, instruments and other measuring devices used in activities affecting quality are properly controlled, calibrated and adjusted at specified periods to maintain accuracy within specified limits which is consistent with NRC rules and regulations and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
b.
The equipment calibration procedures are properly and effectively implemented and the results adequately documented.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Issue No. 4, a.
Section 7, Calibration to verify that vendor had established procedures to prescribe a system for equipment calibration.
b.
Review of the following procedures; (1)
QC-C-1, Revision 3, Calibration Check, Calibration and Control of Measuring and Test Equipment, (2) QC-C-1 1 through 1.14 dated February 27, 1978, and (3) Calibration Procedures for Various Tools Gages and (4) Instruments 20-67-07 Issuing and Controlling Pressure Gages, to verify that they had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by management, and reviewed by Quality Assurance. Also verify that the procedures specify the items to be calibrated frequency, method, and method of documenting of calibration.
c.
Review of equipment recall schedule, calibration results, cali-bration records to verify that the calibration results, calibration interval, and the procedures and standards use for calibration, are properly implemented.
d.
Tracking ten (10) instruments, gages, and meters, through the calibration process, to verify that they had been properly cali-brated and certified.
3.
Finding a.
The inspector verified that:
(1) Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor to prescribe a system to assure that tools, gages, instruments, 1440 197
t 9
l
'and other measuring devices used to verify the acceptability of nuclear items are properly controlled, calibrated, and adjusted at specified periods to maintain accuracy within the specified limits, and the system is consistent with NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
(2) The equipment calibration procedures are properly and g
effectively implemented and the results are adequately documented.
b.
The inspector observed that corrections had been made to calibration records using " white-out." None of the purchase orders in house specified ANSI N45.2.9: therefore, this is not a deviation. The l
quality control manager stated that while the use of " white-out" was not a deviation, it was considered poor practice, and in-structed the inspector performing the calibration to discontinue using " white-out" when making corrections. He also stated that all of the calibration records would be reviewed to identify any unacceptable practices.
c.
Within this area of the faspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
H.
Audits (External - Vendors) 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
a.
Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor that prescribed a system for auditing vendors which is consistent with NRC rules and regulations, and the commitments of the ASME accepted QA Manual, b.
The verdor audit procedures were being properly and effectively implemented.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual Issue No. 4; (1) Section 1, paragraph 1.6 Responsibility and Authority, and 1440 198
10 (2).Section 3, Procurement Control, to verify that procedures had been established to prescribe a system for auditing, which is consistent with NRC rules and regulations.
b.
Review QC-218-1 Revision 0, Procedure for Vendor Audits, to verify that it had been perpared by the designated authority, approved by management, and reviewed by QA.
c.
Review of QC-218-2, QA Auditor Training, to verify that it identifies the organizations responsible for auditing, and their responsibilities; establishs audit personnel qualifications and training, and that the audits are performed by qualified personnel.
Also, to verify that the essential elements of the audit system is established.
d.
Review of vendor audit schedules to assure that the audits of the vendor's quality activities during design, procurement and manufacture are planned, documented, and conducted in the prescribed manner, and assures coverage of all aspects of the QA program.
Review of vendor audit reports to verify that they include e.
provisions for written plans, team selection, team orientation, audit notifications, pre-audit conferences, audit performances, and post-audit conferences.
f.
Review of vmdor audit reports to verify that they are properly distributed to management and the audited vendor organization; and the follow-up audits to verify corrective action is required.
g.
Review of eight (8) selective vendor audit reports to verify the applicable procedures were available to the audit team personnel, and that the audit procedures were properly and effectively implemented.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that:
(1) Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor that prescribed a system for auditing vendors which is consistent with NRC rules and regulations and the commitmeats of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual.
1440 199
11 (2) The vendor audit procedures were being properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
b.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
J.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on September 13, 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 management acknowledged the inspector's statement and had no additional comments.
i o
J
..-.. - _