ML19257D202
| ML19257D202 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/12/1979 |
| From: | Kelley W, Whitesell D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257D200 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900309 99900309-79-1, NUDOCS 8002010522 | |
| Download: ML19257D202 (11) | |
Text
J U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0rD1ISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Report No.
99900309/79-01 Program No.
51300 Company:
Valtek Incorporated Mountain Springs Parkway Springville, Utah 84663 Inspection Conducted: November 13-15, 1979 p
S'l Inspector:
/2-/2 -7f VWm. D. Kelley, Contractor Inspector Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Approved by:
,7
/
/2 -/2,-7f f E. Whitesellg Chief Date ComponentsSection II Vendor Inspection Branch Summary Inspection on November 13-15, 1979 (99900309/79-01)
Areas Inspected:
Implementation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B and applicable codes and standards including, design and document control - design input, audits -
internal management, equipment calibration, inspection test - liquid penetrant examination, and control of special processes - weld heat treatment; also, reviewed the vendor's activities and the corrective action implemented concerning previously identiUcd items; and held an exit interview. The inspection involved twenty (20) inspector-hour on site by one (1) NRC inspector.
Results:
In the seeca (7) areas inspected, no deviations or unresolved items were identified in sie (6) ar-as.
The following were identified in the remaining one (1) area.
Unresolved Items: Audits - Internal Management (Details paragraph E.3.c.).
Paragraph 11.3.2.3 of Section 12.0 of the ASME Accepted Quality Assurance Manual does not clearly describe in detail, how the selected auditors are trained and qualified -
the Quality Assurance Manager.
1856 197 8 002 o1o 522
2 DETAILS SECTION A.
Persons Contacted Valtek Incorporated (VI)
- C.
L. Bates, President
- G. C. Clark, Quality Assurance Manager R. P. Johnson, Inspection Foreman L. R. Larson, Quality Assurance Engineer A. Marcov, Engineer Designer E. Steele, Engineering Detailer
- Denotes those persons who attended the exit interview.
B.
General Review of Vendor's Activities 1.
The ASME issued the following Certificates of Authorization to VI to use their symbol:
Certification No.
Symbol Product N-1884 N
Class 1, 2, & 3 valves N-1885 NPT Class 1, 2, & 3 valve parts These certificates expire on October 14, 1980.
2.
The authorized inspection agenc'J is Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company.
The authorized nuclear inspector is an itin-erant inspector.
3.
VI's contribution to the nuclear industry represents approximately four percent (4%) of its total workload.
4.
VI managements' attention was directed to paragraph 1.2.1 of Section 1.0 " Administration," to the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual which states in part ".
. The methods and practices described in this Manual do not pertain to valve operators, controllers, positioners and operator accessories
." VI management informed the inspector, that the same observation had been made by the Authorized Nuclear Inspector, and the Quality Assurance Manual is in the process af being revised to include these items.
1855 198
i 3
C.
Previously Identified Items (Closed) Deviation (Report No. 78-02 Item A):
Contrary to Criterion XII of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and paragraph NCA-4134.12 of Section III to the ASME Code there was no calibration procedure for hand tools that established the range, type and accuracy to verify conformance to established requirements.
The inspector verified that VI had written a Special Process Procedure SPP-852, Revision 0;"' Calibration Procedure" and that the procedure had been approved, and issued, in accordance with the requirements of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual.
(Closed) Deviation (Report No. 78-02, Item B):
Contrary to Criterion VI of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, paragraph NCA-4134.6 of Section III to the ASME Code, and paragraph 5.0 of VI procedure SPP-200, Revision 0, the Engi.neering Work Order for VI Order 10078, pages 1 through 4, had not been signed by the Project Engineer.
The inspector verified that VI had written a Special Process Procedure SPP-209, Revision 0; " Engineering Procedure for Nuclear Valves and Parts," which requires Engineering to review the Engineering Work Orders and to verifiy that they meet the customer's design specification and is correct.
The procedure had been approved and issued in accordance with the requirements of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual.
The inspector also verified that the Engineering Work Order, for VI Order number 10078, had been signed by the Project Engineer as specified.
(Closed) Deviation (Report No. 78-02, Item C):
Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 and paragraph NCA-4134.5 of Section III to the ASME Code there were no documented instructions, procedures, or drawings which addressed design verification testing, and/or method of stress analysis.
The inspector verified that VI had written Special Process Procedures SPP-210, Revision 0; " Design Verification Testing Procedure" and SPP-211, Revision 0; " Preparation of Design Calculations and Stress Reports;"
and that the procedures had been approved and issued in accordance with the requirements of the ASME accepted Quality Manual.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (Report No. 78-02): The vendor's Heat Treat Certification strip chart shows a ramp cool down rate and VI was to check their heat treat veador for thermocouple locations and method of cool down.
1855 199
J 4
The inspector verified that VI had contacted their heat treatment vendor, and verified the thermocouple locations, and method and rate of cool down were identified.
VI stated in their letter of August 29, 1978, that the gas burners of the heat treat furnace had a proportional controller which was set to provide a cool down rate in compliance with the requirements of the procedure.
D.
Design and Document Control - Design Input 1.
Objective The objective of this area of the inspection was to verify that-Procedures had been prepared and approved by the vendor to a.
prescribe a system for the control of design inputs, which is consistent with NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments in his ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
b.
The design input procedures are properly and effectively imple-mented.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 5; a.
(1) Section 4.0, " Design Control," and (2) Section 13.0, " Quality Assurance Records,"
to verify that the vendor had established procedures which prescribed a system for the control of design inputs.
b.
Reviewed the following procedures; (1) SPP-209, Revision 0, " Engineering Procedure for Nuclear Valves and Parts,"
(2) SPP-210, Revision 0, " Design Verification Testing Procedure,"
and (3) SPP-211, Revision 0, " Preparation of Design Calculations and Stress Reports,"
to verify that they had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by management, and reviewed by quality assurance 1855 200
5 c.
Reviewed the documents referenced in paragraphs a and b to verify that they have been properly and effectively implemented, and that the design inputs have been appropriately documented, and are correct, and d.
Interviews with personnel to verify that they are knowledgeable in the procedures applicable to design inputs.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that:
(1) Procedures have been prepared and approved by the vendor, to prescribe a system for the control of design inputs which is consistent with NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments.
(2) The design input procedures are properly and effectively implemented, b.
Follow-up Item The inspector brought to managements attention that the standard tolerances stated in the title block do not state what cali-bration IcVel of VI procedure SPP-852, Revision 0, " Calibration Precedure," the gages, instruments, and other measuring devices must meet. An example is a dimension expressed in thousands (X.XXX) of an inch on a drawing has an allowable tolerance of i 0.010 inches according to the standard tolerance specified in the title block but does not identify the calibration level of the measuring instruments used. The calibration procedure states, that Class C gages, instruments, and measuring devices are to have a calibration accuracy 1 0.003 inches; thus a part could be 0.003 inches above or below the specified drawing tolerance, unless the calibration tolerances are considered when dimensional checks are made.
The inspector will review VI's resolution of this apparent in-consistency on a subsequent inspection.
c.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
E.
Audits (Internal Management) 1856 201 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
a.
Procedures have been prepared and approved by the vendor to prescribe a system for auditing (Internal Management) which is consistent with NRC rules and regulation, and the vendor's commitments.
J 6
b.
The audit procedures are being properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 5; a.
(1) Section 2.0, " Organization and Responsibility (Synopsis),"
(2) Section 12.0, " Internal Audits," and (3) Section 14.0, " Indoctrination and Training Programs,"
to verify that the vendor had established procedures which prescribe a system for internal audits.
b.
Review of the documents referenced in paragraph a, to verify that they had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by responsible management, and reviewed by the quality assurance staff.
Review of the documents referenced in paragraph a, to verify c.
that they identify the organization responsible for auditing, establishes the qualifications of the audit personnel, provides for the training and qualification of the audit personnel, estab-lishes the essential elements of the audit system, provides for appropriate audit schedules to assure coverage of all elements of the quality assurance program, and requires reporting and follow-up audits to verify corrective action.
d.
Review of six (6) audit reports to verify whether the procedures and the necessary audit system documents, are available to the auditing personnel; and whether the pro-cedures are being properly and effectively implemented.
3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that:
(1) Procedures have been prepared and approved by the vendor which prescribes a system for auditing, consistent with NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments.
1855 202
7 (2) The audit procedures are being properly and effectively implemented by the vendor.
b.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations were identified.
c.
Unresolved Item Paragraph 12.3.2.3 of Section 12.0, " Internal Audits," of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, does not describe in detail how the auditors are selected and trained by the quality assurance manager. The inspector verified that the auditors had been properly trained and qualified, and that the training had been documented. VI is revising the quality assurance manual to clearly describe in detail how the auditors are trained and qualified. The inspector will review the revised Quality Assurance Manual concerning this item, on a subsequent inspection.
F.
Equipment Calibration 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that:
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, Revision 5; a.
(1) Section 9.0, " Qualification of Gages and Equipment," and 1856 203
8 (2) Section 11.0, "Nonconformities,"
to verify the vendor had established procedures to prescribe a system for equipment calibration.
b.
Review of the following procedures:
(1) SPP-852, Revision 0, " Calibration Procedure," and (2) SPP-205, Revision 1, " Verification of Pressure Gauge Calibration,"
to verify that they had been prepared by the designated authority, approved by management, and reviewed by Quality Assurance.
Also to verify that the procedures specify the items to be calibrated, the precision, the frequency, the method, and the method of documenting the calibration status.
Review of the equipment recall schedule and calibration records, to c.
verify that the calibration results, calibration interval, and the procedures and standards use for calibration were properly identi-fied and were in compliance with the appropriate calibration pro-cedures.
d.
Tracking ten (10) instruments, gages, and meters through the calibration process, to verify that they had been properly calibrated and certified.
3.
Findings 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 and other measuring devices used in activities affecting quality were 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.
(2) The equipment calibration procedures are properly and effectively implemented and the results adequately documented.
b.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
)0bb
J 9
G.
Inspection and Test - Liquid Penetrant Examination 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspectinn were to verify that:
a.
The liquid penetrant examination procedures used by the vendor met NRC rules and regulations and ASME Code requirements.
b.
The liquid penetrant examination was being conducted by properly qualified personnel in accordance with approved and qualified procedures.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
Review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 5, a.
Section 8.0, " Nondestructive Examination (NDE)" to verify that the vendor had established procedures that prescribed the liquid penetrant examination procedures.
b.
Review of procedure SPP-316, Revision 7, " Liquid Penetrant Exam-ination Visible Dye Method per ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code," to verify that it had been approved, certified, and issued in accordance with the vendor's ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
Review of the document referenced in paragrapt b. to verify c.
that it was currently being used, and that it defined the sig-nificant examination variables, and these variables were con-trolled within the limits specified by the ASME Code.
d.
Review of the documents referenced in paragraph a. and b. to verify that they provided for requalification when changes are made to surface preparations or change in penetrant materials.
e.
Verified that all indications revealed by the examination, are evaluated in accordance with the procedure and the results re-ported in the prescribed manner.
f.
Reviewed NDE personnel qualification records.
g.
Interviews with personnel performing liquid penetrant examination to verify they are knowledgeable in the applicable procedures.
I855 205
J 10 3.
Findings a.
The inspector verified that:
(1) The liquid penetrant examination procedures used by the vendor met NRC rules and regulations and ASME Code requirements.
(2) The liquid penetrant examination was being conducted by properly qualified personnel in accordance with approved and qualified procedures.
b.
No liquid penetrant examination was performed on nuclear valve parts during the inspection.
c.
Within this area of the inspection no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
H.
Control of Special Processes-Weld Heat Treatment 1.
Objectives The objectives of this area of the inspection were to verify that the heat treatment related to welding is specified, and that it is performed in accordance with the NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments in the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual.
2.
Method of Accomplishment The objectives of this area of the inspection were accomplished by:
a.
The review of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 5:
(1)
Section 5.0, " Procurement Control," and (2)
Section 10.0, " Heat Treatment Process Control,"
to verify that the vendor had established procedures to prescribe a system for weld heat treatment.
b.
Review of the following procedures:
(1) SPP-815, Revision 0, " Post Weld Heat Treatment for Carbon Steel Material,"
(2) SPP-811, Revision 2, " Heat Treat Procedure for 440C Stainless Steel," and 1855 206
11 (3) SPP-821, Revision 1, " Post Weld Heat Treatment for Chrome -
Moly Material (P-Number 4),"
to verify that it had been reviewed, approved, and properly qualified.
c.
Reviewed the following documents:
(1) Qualified Vendor's Listing, and (2) Vendor Survey Evaluation Report, to verify that the heat treatment of welds was performed by a qualified vendor in accordance with the requirements of the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program.
d.
Interviews with personnel to verify they are knowledgeable in the procedures applicable to weld heat treating.
3.
Findings The inspector verified that the heat treatment, relative to a.
to welding, was specified as being performed by a vendor and was being performed in accordance with the NRC rules and regulations, and the vendor's commitments.
b.
The vendor performing the heat treatment has been surveyed by VI Quality Assurance Department in accordance with the ASME accepted Quality Assurance Program and was listed on the current Approved Vendors List.
c.
Within this area of the inspection, no deviations or unresolved items were identified.
I.
Exit Interview At the conclusion of the inspection on November 15, 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 were identified; however, one uuresolved item was identified.
The company's management acknowledged the inspector's statement and had no additional comments.
1855 207