ML19254C628
| ML19254C628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/13/1979 |
| From: | Mcneill W, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254C603 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900003 99900003-79-2, NUDOCS 7910170046 | |
| Download: ML19254C628 (9) | |
Text
~
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900003/79-02 Program No.
51500 Company:
General Electric Company Wilmington Manufacturing Department Box 780 Wilmington, No-th Carolina 28401 Inspection Conducted: June 4-7, 10'9 Inspectors:
8 C7-- /J-79 W. M. McNeill, Contracto'r Inspector Date Vender Inspection Branch 0
Approved by:'
b4t-(A,.tJR
^
g-47 79 D. E. Whitesell, Chief, ComponentsSection I Date' Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on June 4-7, 1979 (99900003/79-0_2)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of the Topical Report including document control; nonconformances and corrective actions; and action on previous inspection findings. The inspe-tion involved thirty-two (32) inspector-hours on site by one (1) NRC inspector.
Results:
In the thr_e (3) areas inspected, no apparent deviations or unresolved items were identified in one (1) area. The following four (4) deviations were identified in the remaining two (2) areas:
Deviations: Action on Previous Inspection Findings - the Analytical Laboratory Control Instruction was not fully implemented in the area of balance calibration as required by the corrective action commitments (See Notice of Deviation, Item A);
Action on Previous inspection Findings - welders were not maintaining D.W.I. re-quirements as required by Section 5 of the Topical Report and the D.W.I (See Notice of Deviation, Item B); Nonconformances and Corrective Actions - the documented system was not fully implemented in the areas of segregation, designation of travelers, tagging of hardware, jproval of repairs and identification of noncon-formances as required by Section 5 of the Topical Report and the ASME QA Manual (See Notice of Deviation, Item C).
F' qqi JO J 4. 9 7910170 0 %
~
2 Contrary to the above; 1.
Procedure P/P 70-4, section 5.4, requires nonconforming material to be segregated from other material. Two lots of upper tie plates were found on the shop floor in the same handling case.
One lot 69060 was noncoaforming (RR868) and the other lot 6912A was not identified as nonconforming.
2.
P acedure P/P 70-4, section 5.3.2, requires the shop traveler of nonconforming material to be identified wich an Inspection Report (IR). One (1) nonconforming Control ",d Cylinder Flange S/N 6738 was found which did not hava.ts IR with the chop traveler packages.
3.
Procedure P/P 70-4, section 5.4.2 requires that nonconforming hardware to be tagged with a Nonconforming Material Tag (NCM).
Five (5) Control Rod Cylinder Flanges S/N's 8229, 7277, 6738, 4972 and 1026 were found which did not have NCM Tags.
4.
Procedure P/P 70-17 section 5.3.18, requires that repair ~of non-conforming materials be dispositioned and approved by the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI).
One (1) Control Rod Cylinder Flange S/N 8229 was found on a handling rack with no documentation of the ANI approval of the repair in progress.
5.
Procedure P/P 70-4, sections 4.1, 5.2 and 5.3 require nonconformances to be documented with a NCM Tag and an IR.
A nonconforming Storage Rack Guide Tube was found on a handling rack with only a Not Ready for Inspection Tag, not a NCM tag nor an IR.
6.
The method sheet No. 001 specified on the traveler tor part. 21.,A5276 requires protective devices (K plug 30AD651) to be installed on parts to protect parts during storage and handling.
Guide Tubes (213A5276) were observed on a storage rack without the required protective devices.
.e n -) E
)C Ilbd
3 Details Section A.
Persons Contacted W. L. Baker, Quality Systems Engineer R. S. Calcaterra, Purchased Materials Process Control Enginear L. Devane, Foremen
- R. T. Dopki, Manager, Document Control
- C. W. Doyle, Manager, Quality Audits and Customer Service
- L. W. Emory, Manufacturing Engineer J. A. Ferencak, QC Planner
- T. B. Hawkins, Manager, Welding and Special Processes E. W. Hodges, Foreman A. L. Kaplan, Manager, Licensing and Compliance
- C. P. Kesher, Test Equipment Services L. a. Lasure, Process Control Engineer
+E. A. Lees, Manager Quality Assurance
- J. H. Liberman, QA Engineer A. Long, Manager, Equipment Manufacturing s.
- F. M. Maliga, Manager, Quality Verificacion and Records J. E. Miller, Manager, Equipment Quality Programs R. G. Miller, Technican R. I. Parnell, Chemet Lab Engineer E. A. Schaefer, Chemet Lab Engineer
- C. Schiltz, Manager, Equipment Manufacturing Engineering
- L. A. Sheely, Manager, Fuel Quality
- R. C. Van Duyne, Manager, Equipment Process Engineering Control
- T. P. Winslow, Manar., Chemet Lab J. F. Wolfe, Manage;, Equipment Processes and Support Operations
- E.
L. Sherrill, Authorized Inspector, State of North Carolina
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
B.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings 1.
(Closed) Deviation (Report No. 79-01): The Analytical Laboratory Control Instruction was not fully implemented. The H meters are y
being calibrated, air flow measurements are being made, records have been generated on sample tubes. However, in 2 viewing the corrective action regarding calibration of balances it was observed that the sensitivity was not measured as defined by the CM&S pro-cedure.
o
- l. cc
4 Deviation See Notice of Deviation, Item A.
2.
(Closed) Deviation (Report No. 79-01): Control charts were exceeded for NBL 97 without proper documentation. New control chart limits have beea established and the analytical method revised to correct this problem, 3.
(Closed) Deviation (Report No. 79-01): Procedure QIS 109 had not been revised as required. Quality Inspection Standard 109 has been revised and other QIS is reviewed in light of this change.
4.
(Closed) Deviation (Report No. 79-01):
Hardfacing was not requalified as required. Hardfacing has been qualified to current parameters.
Process Control Engineering will review all new changes as documented on Detail Weld Instructions (DWIs).
5.
(Closed) Deviation (Report No. 79-01): Welders were not maintaining welding parameters.
Inspection of current selding was done to verify preventative action. However, two (2) of three (3) welding stations were found to be not maintaining welding parameters. This is a repeat deviation.
Deviation See Notice of Deviation, Item B.
6.
(closed) Deviation (Report No. 79-01): A current design drawing was not maintained as required. The drawing question was updated.
An audit of the station for a sample of other drawings established no other drawings were not maintained.
7.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (Report No. 78-02): Recovery of records which would demonstrate conformance of shipping containers to their Certificates of Compliance. Records are now on file which demonstrated conformances of the containers to their Certificates of Compliance.
8.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (Report No. 79-01):
Clarification of the stop work notice procedure was needed. Practice and Procedure, (P/P) 80-34 has been revised to add QC review and approval of all stop work notices on quality problems.
9.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (Report No. 79-01): An inconsistency within a procedure QC Examination Instruction 652 was to be resolved.
QCEI 62 has been revined to remove this inconsistency.
lJr-0
$i nn7
5 C.
Document Control 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
a.
The fuel manufacturer's dccument control system for design, manufacturing, ano qu.41ity assurance documents is consistent with Regulatory requirements.
b.
The document control system includes all drawings, specifications, procedures, instructions, etc. which affect quality.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
Review of the Topical Report, BWR Quality Assurance Program a.
Description, NEDO-11209-04A, Section 6, titled Document Control; and Wilmington Manufacturiq Department Quality Assurance Program, NEDE-20586, Revision 5, Section 6.6, titled Document Control; which established the general requirements for document control.
b.
Review of the following Practice and Procedure (P/P) and Quality Assurance Section Adminstrative Routine (QASAR) which established the specific requirements of document control:
Quality Assurance Section Administative Routine Issuance and Cont ol, QASAR 320-10.1, Revision 2, QA & CS Docament Review and Impact Assessment, QASAR 320-10.3, Revision 1, Quality Notices, QASAR 320-40.1, Revision 3, Process Control Plan - EM, QASAR 320-40.2, Revision 0, Review of Methods Sheets, QASAR 320-40.4, Revision 1,
~
Product / Process Quality Plan, QASAR 320-40.6, Revision 1, Quality Control Inspection Planning - EM, QASAR 320-100.4, Revision 1, Quality Control Test Instruction - EM, QASAR 320-100.7, Revision 2,
!l~56 028
6 Issuing WMD Practices and Procedures, P/P 10-3, Revision 6, Issuing Section Administrative Routines, P/P 10-4, Revision 4, Document Review Agreement, P/P 30-6, Revision 3, Quality Assurance Document System, P/P 70-2, Revision 4, Process Requirements and Operating Documents (PROD), P/P 80-6, Revision 3, Product Drawing Control, P/P 80-10, Revision 7, Method Sheet / Board Procedure, P/P 80-18, Revision 4, Shop Documentation System - FCO, P/P 80-27, Revision 2, Planning Change Request - FM, P/P 80-29, Revision 1, Temporary Operating Instructions - FM PP/80-32, Revision 4, Implementation of Planning Changes - EM, P/P 80-33, Revision 5, Review'and Approval of Engineering Change Notices / Requests, P/P 80-35, Revision 3, and Process Engineering Instruction, Revision 3, P/P, Revision 4, and Master Planning File - EM, P/P 80-42, Revision 5.
c.
Verification of the implementation of the above by checking review, distribution, indexing and control of a sample of the following types of documents: P/Ps, QASARs, Quality Notices, Process Control Plans, Quality Control Inspection Instructions, Product / Process Quality Plans, Methods Sheets, Quality Inspection Standards, Standard Repair Plans, Operator Parameter Sheets, and Manuf;cturing Equipment Instruction.
The verification included checking the current issuance was found at the work stations and were changed in the accepted manner.
3.
Findings a.
Deviations t'
ri q Q JO VL/
None.
7 b.
Unresolved Items None.
D.
Nonconformances and Corrective Actions 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
The manufacturer's system contains sufficient measures to provide a.
reasonable assurance that nonconforming materials, parts, or components are not inadvertently utilized and that prompt cor-rective actions are taken.
b.
The manufacturer's system meets the requirements of Criteria XV and XVI, Appendix B, 10 CFR 50.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of the Topical Report, BWR Quality Assurance Program Description, NEDO-11209-04A, Section 15, titled Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or Components; and Wilmington Manufacturing Department Quality Assurance Program, NEDE-20586, Revision 5 Section 6.15, titled Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or Components; which establish the general requirements for nonconformances and corrective actions.
b.
Review of the following Practice and Procedure (P/P) and Quality Assurance Section Adminstrative Routine (QASAR) which established the specific requirements of nonconformances and corrective actions:
Nonconforming Measurement and Test Equipment, QASAR, 320-603.3, Segregation of Scrap Production Material - EM, QASAR 320-110.
3, Revision 2, Nonconforming Material Control - EM, P/P 70-4, Revision 6, Material Review, P/P 70-5, Revision 5, Corrective Action Request, P/P 70-9, Revision 6, Repair Planning System - EM, P/P 70-17, Revision 4,, feed i156 030
8 Nonconforming Material Control - FCO, P/P 70-33, Revision 5, and Nonconforming Material Control - FMO, P/P 70-34, Revision 4.
c.
Review of the ASME Code Compliance Manual, Revision 0, Sections 15, Nonconforming Materials or Items and 16, Corrective Actions which established additional requirements.
d.
Verification that the above procedures were implemented by inspection of nonconforming parts found in three (3) locations on the shop floor. This verification included a check of disposition repair and identification of nonconforming materials.
3.
Findings a.
Deviations See Notice of Deviation, Item C.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
c.
Comments (1) Tie Plates are fabricated in the ASME Code shop under the rules of the ASME Code Compliance Manual.
Both lots of tie plate *,d cleaning problems. One lot had been documented as no.onforming on a Inspection Report (IR). The other lot t been identified as "Not Ready for Inspection."
The t. lots were segregated at the time of the inspection.
(2) One rack was found with six (6) Control Rod Cylinder Flanges.
Each was in the process of being repaired. Only one of these conformed to the procedure requirements. The GE system is to identify both the hardware (NCM Tag) and its associated software or travelers (IR).
This dual system allows for the removal of one tag while processing or planning without loss of identification of the nonconforming system. However, the Flanges in question were not in planning nor mounted on equipment. NCM Tags were placed on the Flanges at this time.
(3) Cylinder Flange 8/N 8229 was in the process of repair. This repair was not on a Standard Repair Plan but a handwritten 11C'1JO VJl o71
9 repair plan. This repair had begun with ANI approval.
This repair plan did not have a hold point for ANI approvals.
(4) The Storage Rack Guide Tube had apparently been drawn from the storage room.
It was noted that the weld prep was missing. Because the weld prep was an operation done at WMD on the preceding traveler an NRI Tag was placed on the part.
However, it would appear that this is a misuse of the NRI procedure. The missing weld prep puts a question on the entire inspection done before the part was placed in the storeroom.
By definition the part deviated from the pre-scribed inspection procedure and is nonconforming.
E.
Exit Interview The inspector met with management representatives (denoted in paragraph A) at the conclusion of the inspection on June 7, 1979.
The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection.
The management representatives had no comments in response to each item discussed by the inspector.
I156 032
.