ML19254C650
| ML19254C650 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/27/1979 |
| From: | Barnes I, Hunnicutt D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254C631 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900287 NUDOCS 7910170064 | |
| Download: ML19254C650 (9) | |
Text
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No. 99900287/79-01 Program No. 51300 Company:
TRW Mission Manufacturing Company Post Office Box 40402 Houston, Texas 77040 Inspection Conducted: March 12-16, 1979 Inspector:
e A-2h 7 7 I. Barnes, Contractor Inspector Date Vendor Inspection Branch Approved by: Nh MP fM7[79 D.
M.~ Hunnicutt, Chief, ComponentsSection II
/ Date Vendor Inspection Branch Suninary Inspection on March 12-16, 1979 (99900287/79-01)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, criteria and applicable codes and standards, including action on previous inspection findings; manufacturing process control; procedure, document and drawing control; heat treatment and review of welder qualifications. The inspection involved thirty-two (32) inspector-hours on site.
Results:
In the five (5) areas inspected, no apparent deviations or unresolved items were identified in two (2) areas. The following deviations and unresolved items were identified in the remaining areas:
Deviations: Manufacturing Process Control - Failure of Manufacturing to explicitly follow Shop Traveler and other work defining documents (Enclosure, Item A.).
Procedure, Document and Drawing Control - Absence of documented evidence of performance of required design reviews (Enclosure, Item B.).
Failure to perform required review and approval of manufacturing drawings (Enclosure,ItemC.). Heat Treatment - Performance and review of tempering heat treatment not in accordance with QA Program commitments (Enclosure, Item D.).
1 1r' 970 i !30
/
s r
L 7910170 4
. Unresolved Items: Manufacturing Process Control - Absence in QA Program of system used to control and implement design changes relative to valves in active manufacturing status (Details, paragraph C.3.b.).
Procedure, Docunent ar.d Drawing Control - Conflict between Product Assurance Manual and Design Control Procedure relative to requirements for issue of Design Reports (Details, paragraph D.3.b.).
1156 000 9
e i
O
. DETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted
- J. W. Turner, Director of Technical Operations
- D. Hanink, Director of Manufacturing
- G. B. Biggers, Product Assurance Manager
- S. P. Buckner, Chief, Valve Department Engineer
- M. D. Duty, Senior Quality Engineer
- J. D. Harrison, Senior Quality Engineer
- R. F. Kane, Manager, Metallurgy
- 0. Kyle, Manager, Projects
- J. L. Lindner, Quality Engineer T. Mercer, Inspection Foreman
- H. Morris, Senior Quality Engineer
- Attended exit interview.
B.
Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Deviation (Item A, Enclosure, Inspection Report No. 78-01):
1.
Repeat failure to issue Quality Control Inspection Instructions and Inspection Report in accordance with corrective action commit-ments.
The inspector verified that the comitted Quality Control Inspec-tion Instructions and Inspection Report (QCII 051 through 061) were completed in February 1979.
(Closed) Deviation (. Item B, Enclosure, Inspection Report No. 78-02):
2.
Failure of Manufacturing to explicitly follow Shop Traveler and other work defining documents.
The inspector verified that the comitted instructions and training had been given and that the revised traveler system was in manu-facturing use. The inspector did note that the training sessions actually given to inspectors predated the reported finding.
This item was resolved by the Product Assurance Manager committing to perform a further documented training session by March 31, 1979, with Inspection personnel, in order to re-emphasize the need for both proper sign-off of travelers and verification that previous operations had been satisfactorily completed.
Duritig the manufacturing process control phase of this inspec-tion a repeat deviation was identified on this subject.
(See Enclosure, Item A.)
11$$001
. 3.
(0 pen) Deviation (Item C, Enclosure, Inspection Report No. 02):
Segregation and identification of hinge pin materials not consistent with QA prograa commitments.
The status of this finding was not reviewed during this inspection, owing to correspondence on the finding not being completed prior to the inspection.
4.
(Closed) Deviation (Item D, Enclosure, Inspection Report No. 78-02):
Absence of requirement in QCP-035, Revision A, to examine Level II magnetic particle and liquid penetrant personnel in visual methods to a comparable level of competency as methods covered by SNT-TC-1A documents.
The inspector verified that procedure QCP-035 had been revised to require all inspectors performing visual examination to be qualified to comparable levels of competency as methods covered by SNT-TC-1A documents. The inspector also established that current Level II NDE personnel at TRW Mission had been accordingly qualified for the visual examination method.
5.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (Details, paragraph C.3.b., Inspection Report No. 78-02):
Utilization of austenitic stainless steel pin retainers in c::rbon steel valve bodies.
This item has been left open pending issuance of appropriate new drawings to allow verification of selection of compatible pin retainer material.
C.
Manufacturing Process Control 1.
Objective The objective of this area of the inspection was to veri fy that the manufacturing process is controlled in accordance with applicable regulatory and Code requirements.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objective was accomplished by:
a.
Review of Product Assurance Manual, Secticn 5.0, revision dated January 19, 1979, " Process Control."
b.
Review of Product Assurance Manual, Section 6.0, revision dated January 19, 1979, " Welding Quality Assurance."
1156 JB2
. c.
Observation of manufacturing operations on seven (7) valve components, which were selected from three (3) contracts, relative to:
(1) Completeness of operation sign off in terms of observed visual status.
(2) Methods and practices used being consistent with QA program comit:.1ents and ASME Code requirements.
(3) Utilization of procedures approved for the applicable contract.
(4) Compliance with inspection and hold point requirements.
(5) Personr.el being qualified as required by ASME Code.
3.
Findings _ _
a.
Deviation from Commitment See Enclosure, Item A.
In addition to the reportes finding, the inspector also observed certain iiscrepant or unclear processing applicable to Product Assurance personnel in the perfonnance of their manufacturing.procesc functions. These are described as follows:
(1) Job No. 80015, Packet 0513D The method of inspection used by an NDE inspector was not checked off on Weld Record No. 5911-1 and the part was rejected for an unrelated defect to 'that repaired by the Weld Record, with no status being provided on the adequacy of the original repair,.
(2) Job No. 56540, Packet 0851F A liquid penetrant inspection (operation 375) was signed off as acceptable without signifying which of the two pennitted procedures was used. The traveler was also noted as providing no traceability of documentation, in that it referenced a Weld Record for recording results.
Since the part was acceptabla on penetrant inspection, no Weld Record was required and no entry was made to indicate the applicable NDE Report.
- 1qr no?
IIsU suJ
.. (3) Job No. 80015, Packet 0508F The remaining qualified postweld heat treat time was not entered by the Quality Engineer on Weld Record Nos. 5869-4 and 5869-5.
b.
Unresolved Items
=
The QA program does not describe control and implementation of design changes relative to valves in an active manufacturing status.
D.
Procedure, Document and Drawing Control 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to:
a.
Ascertain that a system has been established for the control of procedures, documents, and drawir;s which is consistent with the QA Program and customer design requirements.
b.
The system has been established and is operating effectively.
~
2.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
Review of Product Assurance Manual, Section 2.0, revision a.
dated October 20, 1978, " Design Control."
b.
Review of Product Assurance Manual, Section 3.0, ravision dated January 19,1979, " Drawing And Specification Control."
Review of customer approved procedures for Job Nos. 20015, c.
87975, and 56450.
d.
Verification that customer approved and QA Frogram required procedures were at work stations.
e.
Review of traveler pad cles for the referenced contracts in terms of specification of use of app-aved procedures.
f.
Examination of manufacturing drawings in the traveler packages for review and approval status.
115,5 134
7-g.
Verification of submittal and approval of required drawings to clients.
h.
Examinaticn of QA Program connitted system for assuring design adequacy.
i.
Review of Design Control Procedures relative to Product Assurance Manual commitments.
3.
Findinas a.
Deviations from Comitment (1) See Enclosure, Item B.
(2) See Enclosure, Item C.
b.
Unresolved Items Design Control Procedure DCP-004, dated September 18, 1978, is in apparent conflict with the design control requirements of the Product Assurance Manual relative to issue of Design Reports for Class 2 and 3 components. The Product Assurance Manual requires issue of Design Reports whenever the Customer Design Specification specifies service loadings. The internal procedure, however, provides criteria which can allow the non-issue of a Design Report.
E.
Heat Treatment 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to:
a.
Verify that procedures have been established for the heat treatment of materials and parts and that these procedures are consistent with applicable regulatory, ASME Code and contract requirements.
b.
Verify that heat treatment operations are conducted in ac-cordance with lese procedures.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of Product Assurance Manual, Section 9.0, revision dated January 19,1979, " Heat Treating Quality Assurance."
1156 105 b.
Review of calibration procedures and data relative to temperature unifomity of furnaces and accuracy of instrumenta-tion.
c.
Review of solution annealing heat treat specification HTS 4-60, Revision L, and accompanying manufacturing specification MS3247, Revision C.
d.
Examination of solution annealing heat treat records for Job No. 56450, QC S/N 8016, four (4) inch SA351 Type CF8M body.
Review of nomalizing and tempering heat treat specification e.
HTS 3177, Revision A, and accompanying manufacturing specifica-tion MS3239, Revision B.
f.
Examination of nomalizing and tempering heat treat records for Job No. 87975, QC S/N 6186 and 6168.
3.
Findings a.
Deviation from Commitment See Enclosure, Item D.
b.
Unresolved Items None.
F.
Review of Welder Qualifications 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that qualification and subsequent utilization of welders and welding operators were in accordance with the QA Program and Sections III and IX of the ASME Code.
2.
Method of Accomolishment The preceding objectives were accomplished by:
a.
Review of Product Assurance Manual, Section 6.0, revision dated January 19, 1979, " Welding Quality Assurance."
b.
Review of applicable welder qualifications relative to ASME Section IX requirements for shielded metal arc and gas tungsten arc welding operations perfomed in corrosion-resistant over-lays and repair of cast bodies and plates.
{
c) O o n {'
4
'V
. 3.
Findings Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
G.
Exit Interview The inspector met with the management representatives denoted in para-graph A., above, on March 16, 1979, at the conclusion of the inspection.
The scope of the inspection and the findings were discussed with manage-ment representatives present. Management acknowledged the statements of the inspector and had no specific questions relative to the findings.
I156
?87 e