ML19254C645
| ML19254C645 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/27/1979 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254C631 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900287 NUDOCS 7910170060 | |
| Download: ML19254C645 (3) | |
Text
.
TRW Mission Manufacturing Company Docket No. 99900287/79-01 NOTICE OF DEVIATION Based on the results of an NRC inspection conducted on March 12-16, 1979, it appeared that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements as indicated below:
A.
Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 states in part, " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings... and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings...."
Paragraph 1.4.7 in Section 1.0 of the Product Assurance Manual states,
" Manufacturing shall be responsible for explicitly following all Shop Travelers and other work defining documents."
Paragraph 5.5 -in -Section-5.0 of the Product Assurance Manual states in part, "At each production operation the Shop Traveler will be signed as applicable by the Machine Operator and/or the Quality Assurance representative...."
Contrary to the above, the inspector observed the following:
1.
The second temper cycle of Weld Record No. 5911-2 (a work defining document utilized by Job No. 80015, Packet 0513D) was not completed by the operator, although the traveler was signed off for the opera-tion on March 7, 1979.
2.
Operatian 470 (shot blast) on the traveler for Job No. 87975, Packet 0665E, was not signed off, although the next production operation on the traveler had been completed and signed off and shot blasting had been performed.
B.
Criterion III of Appendix B 5910 CFR 50 states in part, "... The design control measures shall provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design, such as by the perfomance of design reviews....
Design changes, including field changes, shall be subject to design control measures comensurate with those applied to the original design Paragraph 2.2 in Section 2.0 of the Product Assurance Manual states in part, "All design work will be thoroughly and independently checked for compliance of the design to the Owner's Certified Design Specifica-tion. The original design calculations and the design review calcula-tions perfomed by a separate group within our Engineering Department ri lia q,7 O,p C
7910170
... will be checked for continuing applicability.... This review will be docemented on the Design Review Checklist which is submitted to the Va'.v" Department Chief Engineer for approval and filing prior to submittal of the drawings to the customer for his approval."
Contrary to the above, drawings were submitted to the customer for approval on Job Nos. 80015 and 87975 without documentation on Design Review Checklists of the continuing applicability of original design and design review calculations.
C.
Criterion VI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 states in part, " Measures shall be established to control. the issuance of documents, such as instruc-tions, procedures, and drawings, including changes thereto, which prescribe all activities affecting quality. These measures shall assure that documents, including changes, are reviewed for adequacy and approved for release by authorized personnel...."
Sub-paragraph 3.1.1.1 of paragraph 3.1 in Section 3.0 of the Product Assurance Manual states in part, " Drawings... are produced by qualified draftsmen under the guidance and supervision of the Chief Valve Engineer. They will be independently checked by a qualified individual within the Engineering Department and approved for release by the Chief Valve Engineer...."
Contrary to the above; 1.
Plate Drawing No.14644, Sheet 2, and Plate Drawing No.14653, Sheet 3, released for production, were not signed to indicate checking had been perfomed by a qualified individual.
2.
The approval blocks were not completed by the Chief Valve Engineer to signify approval release on the above drawings, as i
well as for released Plate Drawing No.14644, Sheets 1 and 3; Plate Drawing No.1465A, Sheets 1 through 3; Plate Drawing No.14653, Sheets 1 and 2; and Plate Drawing No.14658, Sheets 4 and 5.
D.
Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 states in part, " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, proce-dures, or c'rawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings...."
Sub-paragraph 9.1.1 in paragraph 9.1 of the "roduct Assurance Manual states in part, "All heat treating will be performad in accordance with written Heat Treat Specifications and Manufacturing Specifications 1156 977
....." Sub-paragraph 9.1.3 states in part, " Product Assurance will monitor the heat treat process, will verify that each heat treatment complies with specifications and will sign the time-temperature recorder chart...." Sub-paragraph 9.1.4 states in part, " Applicable sections of the chart will be removed from the recorder and delivered to the Quality Engineering office where they will become part of the documenta-tion files...."
i Contrary to the above, Product Assurance appeared not to have monitored a tempering cycle performed on December 22, 1978, for a load containing a 12 inch Duo-Chek, SA216 grade WCB, ASME Section III Class 2 plate, in that the applicable charts were included in the documentation files without the required signature.
Concerning this matter, we note that two temper cycles were performed of respectively 2.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and 3.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> at 1200-12500F on this date versus the 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> required by the applicable Heat Treat Specification, HTS 3177, Revision A.
This operation was not in accordance with the written procedure, and no records were provided that would justify departure from the established Heat Treat Specification.
f f 65
'! 7 0 V/Q l'
.